ramdom

Moon (m) Total integration: 2-6 seconds (500-1500 x 4 milliseconds). Cameras: QHY294M (11mp mono) CMOS cooled to -15 degrees C. Telescope: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet apochromat refractor @ f/7.4. Reducer: None. Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: Orion SkyGlow Broadband L filter. Software: TheSkyX Pro, SharpCap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Full resolution images of the entire series are available at https://www.astrobin.com/84ehrx/ and of the main image at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.7.4.7/moon.jpg What can I say about our Moon that hasn't already been said in countless poems, songs, stories, movies? It is the only natural satellite of our planet, with a diametre about one quarter that of Earth and possessing one sixth of its surface gravity. It is the fifth largest satelite in our solar system and does not have any conditions suitable for life. The Moon orbits Earth at an average distance of 384,400 kilometres and is illuminated by our sun. I normally stick to deep sky objects but during the last total lunar eclipse on November 11, 2022, I managed to capture 1500 exposures of the moon prior to the eclipse (in three batches of 500). Unfortunately it got cloudy so I couldn't image the eclipse itself. I registered and stacked the images using PixInsight and FFT registration and then processed it using Topaz Studio 2. Each of the 1500 frames was 4ms, with a gain of 0 on the QHY294M with the Takahashi FC100DF at F/7.4 (no reducer). The first image on AstroBin (the second below) is the processed version of the stacked 1500 exposures from all three sets; the second image (first below) is the processed version of the stacked 500 exposures from the first set; and the third is the processed version of the very first frame only; and the final image (only on AstroBin) is the unprocessed version of the stacked 1500 exposures. As always, thanks for looking! --Ram

No, I haven't, and I should. I normally use the EZ Processing Suite but I agree this one ended up being noisier than the others.

The ghost of cassiopeiae/Gamma cas nebula IC59/IC63/LBN623/Sh2-185 (c-lsho) Also includes: gamma cassiopeiae Total integration: 53.8 hours/3225 minutes (221x5m = ~18.4h for S2 + 297x5m = ~25h for Ha + 127x5m = ~11h for O3). Camera: QHY163M (16mp mono) CMOS cooled to -15 degrees C. Telescope: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet apochromat refractor @ f/7.4. Reducer: None. Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2. Software: TheSkyX Pro, SharpCap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Full resolution images for the entire series are available at https://www.astrobin.com/nouak1/ and the main image only at: http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.7.4.7/ic59_ic63_221x300+297x300+127x300_3225_53.8h.jpg The gamma cas nebula gets its name from the bright star gamma cassiopeiae (aka Navi) observed in the bottom right quadrant in the image. It is part of the well-known W-shaped asterism in the Cassiopeia constellation and located 550 years from earth. The singular nebula actually consists of two distinctive emission nebulae, IC59/Sh2-185 (center and right) and IC63 (lower left). They are strikingly illuminated by the bright blue star which is 34,000 times more luminous and has 17 times our Sun's mass. The 1.5-3 magnitude star's energy, caused by its extremely rapid rotation rate that distorts its appearance, is also responsible for pushing and dispersing the emissions of these nebulae into the interstellar medium even though they are located light years apart. This series of images were taken without my FC35 reducer, going from the normal f/4.9 to f/7.4. As a result, there is a large number of stars captured which I had to repeatedly reduce the size of to make it less busy. The series contains a Ha-only image (A); PixInsight-only processing with (B) and without (C) star reduction, TopazStudio 2 processing with increasing blue tone without star reduction (D) and with (E-H). There's also one with more traditional colours (J). Attached to this post are (G), (C), (J), and (A); the rest you can see on AstroBin. There is some reflection signal in here that I hope to come back to without narrowband filters and will try to overlay all the channels. I chose to use pale colours rather than the traditional bright golden-blue Hubble palette since there was a strong overlap of the Ha and S2 signals, overwhelming the O3, and I also wanted to choose a processing style that fit the "ghost nebula" monicker this deep sky object is known by. As always, thanks for looking! --Ram

No need to apologise! But A is only Ha data and B is only PixInsight - very light and standard processing (it's basically what was done for A for S2 and O3 also, and then these are the only steps I've done for this image: ChannelCombination, CorrectMagentaStars, SCNR, very slight CurvesTransformation, DynamicCrop - I'm only saying this to illustrate how little this is since I do the vast majority of my colour processing in Topaz Studio 2 now). Only the Topaz Studio 2 versions (C and D) are more extensively processed but I sincerely appreciate your feedback! I've also found it interesting that at least among people I know, most APers tend to prefer the less processed versions (B in this case). This includes me, we're the only ones who zoom in and look around, etc. But laypeople like my wife, daughter, etc. all prefer the extensively processed Topaz Studio 2 (D) version (which I agree does introduce artifacts). --Ram

Also includes NGC6910. Total integration: 1942 minutes/32.4 hours (98 x 300s or 11.43h for Ha + 96 x 300s or 11.20h for O3 + 84 x 300s or 9.80h for S2). Cameras: QHY294M (11mp mono) CMOS cooled to -15 degrees C. Telescopes: Stellarvue SV70T triplet apochromat refractor @ f/4.8. Reducers: SFFR70-APO (0.8x). Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: 1.25" Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, and 3nm S2. Software: TheSkyX Pro, SharpCap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Inline images with reduced quality uploaded to the forum. Full resolution images are available at https://www.astrobin.com/nm6fwk/ and of the main image at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4.4.7/sh2-108_c_lsho_588m+686m+672m_1942m_33h.jpg sh2-108 is often called the Gamma Cygni (Sadr) nebula or even Sadr region because of the foreground appearance of the supergiant star. However, this is an optical illusion: this nebula lies far beyond Gamma Cygni/Sadr in the depths of the Cygnus X complex of star formation regions. Sadr itself lies at a distance of ~1500 light years. The small open cluster of stars above Sadr in the top middle is NGC6910. This cluster however may be located within the nebula itself, as it is at a similar distance of ~3700 light years beyond the galactic Great Rift (the dark band of interstellar clouds of cosmic dust obscuring the middle of the Milky Way, including the stellar association Cygnus OB9, whose core cluster comprises NGC6910). Apparently the dust in front dims the light from the open cluster by more than one magnitude. Still, this 2.2 magnitude object resembling a butterfly shape (and is sometimes also called that) shows off a number of both emission and dark nebulae. This is my first image after a long hiatus, since 2022 was very busy for me. Thankfully, sh2-108 was a relatively straight-forward target, very bright even though I put in some good time on it which helps with noise control and also weighting of images. Even though I've been busy with sciencing the past summer, the weather was not cooperative: there was lot of rain and clouds and the seeing was terrible. So having a lot of exposures helps with improving quality. I avoided doing this target in the past because there's a much larger context that is beautiful and maybe best done with a wide field lens or as a composite but given my time availability, I chose to do the path of least resistance here. The first image (https://www.astrobin.com/nm6fwk/A/) is a Ha only image. The second (https://www.astrobin.com/nm6fwk/B/) is the PixInsight processed image, quite minimal, using the Ha for the L image. I tried a composite L from the mono S2, Ha, and O3 data but Sadr really showed up brightly (due to the O3 signal) and decided this was the better route. I also further processed the PixInsight image in TopazStudio 2 (https://www.astrobin.com/nm6fwk/C/ - minimal and https://www.astrobin.com/nm6fwk/D/). As usual, the processing in C and D looks aesthetically great from far away but if you zoom in, you can see the compromises made to achieve the better look. I am not sure which is better and if you have thoughts on this, please comment. My other image of the Jellyfish Nebula with this type of processing won the 2021 Wiki Science Competition international prize in the astronomy category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Science_Competition_2019_in_the_United_States/Full_results#General). So obviously some people like it and it may well be that the only people that zoom on these images are fellow astrophotographers. As always, thanks for looking! --Ram PS: Even though I lurk here, I've been away for a long time - life has kept me busy and I only managed to gather data for three images this past summer. I'm glad to be back, missed you all, and best wishes for a happy new year!

I found a lot of S2 but it is very overlapping with the Ha and any differences are very fine grained (they are there, but you have to look closely). It actually adds to the texture of the image in creating the master L but doesn't relieve the monotony IMO. Still, I was trying to do something like what you were thinking of: I combine edthe Ha and S2 into a R: H, G: H+S, B:S image first (called it SH). I then took this image and added the O data so that R: SH, G: SH+O, B: O. That gave me the colours that's in the PI image with some tweaks. I think it was a bit orangish which I didn't like so I used PI to push it to reddish colour. In the narrowfield version I did (lower part of the bat done with a separate telescope), I put up the S2 data separately on my AB page: https://www.astrobin.com/hg1c5d/B/ - A is Ha and B is S2 so you can see the similarities and overlap. With the widefield the bat structure is near identical. Still some highlights should I thought have been different but when I colour combined as I did I couldn't get the S2 portions to stand out. That is a great idea - so basically use the LSHO image as the RGB image and do a LRGB combination with the L I've already created. It works - I'm not sure it is cured entirely but it looks a bit better and more "in between" the two extremes (see below). This is processed in JPEG (TopazStudio only lets me save in JPEG) and only did the LRGB combination as you suggested, no convolution of the colours, etc. The monotony of the red is something that'd be worth addressing. I had to work on his intermittently but I did watch a lot of YouTube videos and so on trying to see how the best do the colours. Because the O3 doesn't nicely blend in with the Ha and S2 it's a tricky target to do in colour I find - it's not a simple SHO like many other targets. --Ram

Hi Olly, thank you for your comment - a long time ago a picture of yours (I believe of M51) on this forum is what inspired me to get off the EAA train and into AP. I appreciate all constructive criticism and especially from you. I agree about saturation and I also agree about what's happening with the image. There's a discussion on another forum about the merits of Topaz AI products (in this case TopazStudio) which I used quite a bit in driving the saturation and effects (mild acrylic) to make it look more artsy. It's a bit overcooked as my images tend to be. I do like it personally and I realise not everyone likes it to this degree. When I bring up the TIFF file into TopazStudio it's like the mad scientist in me takes over. A more "honest" image with PixInsight only processing is this one: https://www.astrobin.com/fyu2su/E/ - relatively unprocessed. But my favourite versions are the mono ones (either the Ha or the L, (A) and (B) at the AB URL). Still having issues with proper colour, depth, which is why I'm using TopazStudio. It makes things simpler but also very easy to overcook with that. There's probably some middle ground between the PixInsight and TopazStudio I've yet to find! Thanks again! --Ram

Also includes LBN445, LBN449, LBN453, v419 Cephei. Total integration: 7876 minutes/131+ hours (2193 x 300s for Ha + 3489 x 300s for O3 + 2074 x 300s for S2 + 60 x 120s for OSC). Cameras: QHY163M (16mp mono) and QHY247C (24mp OSC) CMOS cooled to -20 and -15 degrees C. Telescopes: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet and Stellarvue SV70T triplet apochromat refractors @ f/4.9 and @ f/4.8. Reducers: Takahashi FC-35 (0.66x) and SFFR70-APO (0.8x). Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: 1.25" Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2 and 2" Baader UV-IR-Cut Software: TheSkyX Pro, Sharpcap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Just one image of the series is uploaded to the forum. Full resolution images of all the other images in the series are available at https://www.astrobin.com/fyu2su/ https://www.astrobin.com/hg1c5d/ and https://www.astrobin.com/jdaa90/ and of the primary images at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4+7.4.5+6/ou4_sh2-129_wf_c_lshorgb_2193m+3489m+2060m+120m_7876m_131h.jpg (widefield), http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4+7.4.5+6/ou4_sh2-129_nf_c_shorgb_2193m+3489m+2060m+120m_7876m_131h.jpg (narrowfield) and http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.7.4.5/ou4_m_o3_632x300m_3160m_53h.jpg (ou4 only). Hi all, finally this is done! I've been swamped with life, but managed to finish the third image of my Squid series. The following writeup is a lot of the old info slightly updated but my lessons learnt from all the time spent on this target are at the bottom. It was hard to find the time to process this properly so I hope I can come back to it one day. Now to get my new QHY294M + CFW3-S-US setup going. The Squid nebula (ou4) occupies over one degree of the night sky, representing the largest angular extent ever found in a planetary nebula. Known colloquially as the giant squid nebula, it is physically nearly 50 light years across. This bipolar nebula could be one of the nearest of its type known, situated around 2300 light years away, though it being a planetary nebula needs confirmation. Even though it is big and close, you're not likely to find it easily. It is an extremely faint nebula emitting primarily O3 signal and resides within the larger Flying Bat nebula (sh2-129) which tends to overshadow it, making it a challenging target to image. The Squid shape is created by the outflow of material driven by a triple system of hot, massive stars catalogued as HR8119 (blue hypergiant) as well as the pulsating variable star v419 Cephei (red supergiant) seen near the center. While their shapes do their names justice, to me, the Squid seated within the Flying Bat more resembles a hand holding an infinity stone (viewed sideways) rather than a Bat carrying a bejeweled Squid on its back. Seeing the Squid situated within the Flying Bat (which apparently has been confirmed) brightly light up in Ha and S2 emissions makes for a fascinating study in contrast and perspective: Most people prefer to assume the head of the bat shape to be part on the bottom left when it is viewed right side up (aka sideways) but to me it's more natural to have the head be where the small blob of O3 is. This is especially so in the narrowfield framing of my second image, and viewing it sideways, small O3 blob pointing down, and pointing up, all offer something to contemplate. In the widefield framing however it is clear that what most people think is more correct since the wings of the Bat go back a long way. The Flying Bat and Squid project/series became a huge undertaking for me, ending up with a total of more than 131 hours in the final integrated widefield image of both objects and three series of images, with a few versions in each, depending on the data set used for the integration. The three series are Squid by itself, narrowfield, and widefield. In the Squid by itself series (https://www.astrobin.com/jdaa90/), which was done first, I am showcasing the O3 filter data only, with and without RGB stars. The mono Squid imaged with the Takahashi FC100DF consists of ~53 hours of total exposure in O3, making it my single longest total exposure of a target with a particular framing with a specific filter/scope/camera combination. The RGB data collected using the QHY247C with the SV70T adds another two hours to the exposure. The total integration for the version with RGB stars is ~55 hours. I also captured another 5.5 hours of O3 data using my SV70T which I added in while creating the narrowfield version by reprocessing using LocalNormalization and Drizzle (which were a big help to me in combining the data for narrowfield and widefield series). There are several versions of the Squid by itself with full capture details. The difference between the two monochrome versions of the Squid is the application of HDR Multiscale Transform which reduces the halo on the central star as well as the amount of data used: (A) is based on the full ~53 hours whereas (B) is based on the best 40 hours. (C) and (D) are corresponding versions that combine O3 in the blue channel with RGB stars along with changes in the amount of saturation and brightness. Similarly with (E) and (F), but the Squid is in monochrome mixed with the RGB stars background. Finally, the last image is the re-processed O3 version with and without RGB stars representing ~58 and ~60 hours worth of data. Following the Squid-only series, I worked on the narrowfield (https://www.astrobin.com/hg1c5d/) and widefield (https://www.astrobin.com/fyu2su/) series where it is situated between the wingspan of Flying Bat. I started with data from the FC100DF/QHY163M combination which results in a total exposure of 78+ hours for SHO. The SV70T/QHY163M data used for the widefield framing representing another 51+ hours was also integrated in. The RGB data using the QHY247C with the SV70T adds another two hours. The total exposure of the final image with the narrowfield or widefield framing is 131+ hours, my longest to date! For narrowfield series, I struggled with colour. The Ha (A), the S2 (B), and the L versions that include the O3 data (with and without stars, C and D) are my favourites. The final colour versions were processed additionally using TopazStudio (with and without stars, E and F). The widefield series (https://www.astrobin.com/fyu2su/) follows a similar trajectory: there's the Ha (A) and the full L (B), two versions with about 80 hours of data from the SV70T only (C) and the full 131 hours with RGB stars (D), a full version with PixInsight processing only (E), and the corresponding starless versions (F, G), followed by a hybrid with reduced stars (H). As I write above I was trying to create both a narrowfield and a widefield version using two scopes with different FOVs and then integrating all the data in the hopes of producing a better image. I cannot say that the experiment was a success, but I wouldn't call it a failure either: I believe I put in enough time in each of these framings to having them stand on its own. If there's a single image that slightly benefitted from this approach, it's the narrowfield one where the overlap was near 100%. Because I used a shifted FOV you can see slight lines where the images combined but overall I think PixInsight integrated all the data quite well. So some pluses and minuses to this approach, nothing definitive, which seems to be the case generally. As always, thanks for looking! --Ram

Fantastic image, it's a fascinating target as well.

Stunning!

Excellent image - that's a rather unique combination! --Ram

Total integration: ~49 hours/2933 minutes (174 x 420s or 20.3h for Ha + 129 x 420s or 15h for O3 + 116 x 420s or 13.5h for S2). Camera: QHY163M (16mp mono) CMOS cooled to -15 degrees C. Telescope: Stellarvue SV70T triplet apochromat refractor @ f/4.8. Reducer: SFFR70-APO (0.8x). Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: 1.25" Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2. Software: TheSkyX Pro, SharpCap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Full resolution images are also available at https://www.astrobin.com/dfmz8d/ and of the main image at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4.4.5/sh2-216_c_lsho_1218m+812m+903m_2933m_49h.jpg Sh2-216 is one of the closest planetary nebulae to us, with a distance of 420 light years. It is also one of the largest in terms of appearance from us because of its closeness, taking up most of the frame of my SV70T scope (reduced), with actual estimated dimensions ranging from 9-30 light years. The nebula is estimated to be 600,000 years old, formed out of the remnants of a white dwarf. Sh2-216 is a very faint object but I managed to get a decent amount of data to ensure that the filaments and background is sufficiently highlighted. The nebula is rich in O3 and S2 signal which mapped to blue and red appear as a diffuse multicoloured background overlaid by a green and yellow Ha streaks. The combination ended up looking like a surreal/psychedelic rainbow coloured candy. In most of my narrowband images, I tend to do a SCNR to make the image bicolour or at least reduce the green since that is mapped to the Ha data which can be overwhelming. In this case, I just left things as is after the SHO mapping to RGB so you can see all the colours of the rainbow here. The image based on using the Ha data for the luminance turned out the best in my view; the SHO image alone (without any luminance) also looked decent but the blues didn't stand out as much, so I went with the former. The final image processed using TopazStudio 2 tends to stand out a bit more than the one done using PixInsight alone. It's not just the saturation boost but a lot of things the software does under the hood that tweak it so slightly and move the image from being a fair representation of the data (which is found in the PixInsight image and is pretty decent by itself in my opinion) to something even more artistic. As always, thanks for looking! --Ram

Very clever and cool! My nominee for the cosmos in motion challenge (do they have to based on your own data?). --Ram

Simply stunning - fantastic image! --Ram

Stunning!

It is a great image and you've collected some great data but what is happening is that your Ha is overwhelming the other signals. The SCNR will do a part of the trick but I recommend this video also which was helpful in learning to get my O3 data to pop (the same principles apply for the S2 data as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M3zB7-Llhw&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=RockyMountainAstro --Ram

Stunning!! --Ram

Also includes Eta Geminorum/Propus, Mu Geminorum/Tejat, and LDN1564-LDN1568. Total integration: 2218 minutes/37 hours (137/19 x 300/420s or 13.7h for Ha + 94/28 x 300/420s or 11.1h for O3 + 94/35 x 300/420s or 12.2h for S2). Cameras: QHY163M (16mp mono) and QHY247C (24mp OSC) CMOS cooled to -20 and -15 degrees C. Telescopes: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet and Stellarvue SV70T triplet apochromat refractors @ f/4.9 and @ f/4.8. Reducers: Takahashi FC-35 (0.66x) and SFFR70-APO (0.8x). Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: 1.25" Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2 and 2" Baader UV-IR-Cut Software: TheSkyX Pro, SharpCap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Full resolution images are available at https://www.astrobin.com/enlic2/ and of the main image at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4+7.4.5+6/ic443_nf_c_shorgb_2218m+823m+666m+729m_2218m_37h.jpg The Jellyfish nebula (IC443) is the name given to a galactic supernova remnant situated in the constellation Gemini about 5000 light years from Earth. The remains of a supernova that exploded prior to the dawn of the Julian and Gregorian calendars is coincidentally bookended by two bright stars in the frame, Eta Geminorum aka Propus/Praepus/Tejat Prior on the right and Mu Geminorum aka Tejat/Calx on the left side. The narrowfield framing shows the partial shell of supernova remnant (G189.0+03.0) with its distinctive Jellyfish shape in the bottom right quadrant interacting with the molecular clouds surrounding it above and to the left, seemingly as though it is striking them with bolts of lightning. The interactions of the remnant with its surroundings all around are what give rise to its eponymous shape. The four dark nebulae (LDN1565-1568) towards the left in the top half are situated within Sh2-249, which also includes IC444 and LDN1564. The widefield framing (coming soon) showcases the full extended region of about 70 light years properly, also with Drizzle and LocalNormalization so that the banding goes away. I once again did what I did earlier, i.e., imaged the target with two scopes to get two different framings and then combined all the data together, which was collected over two years. One of the difficulties I had with this particular target was that the moon would also rise up along with nebula when it would begin to appear in the sky for me (late fall) so there were several hours worth of exposure that had to be thrown away. Given that it is a relatively bright object, I managed to collect enough signal to produce a decent series of images for each framing. The narrowfield series consists of seven images: (A) Ha, (B) L (m-sho), and three colour combinations (C-E) of the SHO data created using the Ha data for luminance, the last two processed using TopazStudio. This is followed by two different colour versions (F,G) of the SHO data created using a synthetic luminance layer that is a mix of the same data. =I am genuinely curious as to what people think of the TopazStudio 2 based processing. In the "primary" image above, I use moderate/minimal TopazStudio 2 processing after first processing with PixInsight. The two images below are processing only with PixInsight and then full TopazStudio 2 processing (taking it to a 11). On my web page, the full processing one is what looks best, but on AstroBin, it looks like overkill so I picked the middle ground as the primary choice to post here. So I'm curious as to know what people think. PI only: Full TopazStudio 2 processing:

Thanks Martin! It's not so much "if you've got it flaunt it" as much as "flaunt it whether you've got it or not"! At least when it comes to AP (and perhaps many things, we have rooms in our home lit up like a nightclub) I'm more of a psychedelic bright colours person - if it even half works I'll take it. The actual image I produced via PixInsight is quite subdued but then I got a bit carried away in Topaz. I understand not everyone appreciates that and it constantly surprises me (this colour combination is one of my favourites for instance: http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.7.4.5/ic1396_sho.v0221.jpg) but it makes my twelve year old daughter happy... The Squid itself could be subdued as the image (not mine) I was following for the colours does but I was following this video on getting your O3 data to "pop" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M3zB7-Llhw&ab_channel=RockyMountainAstro) so that was partly responsible for the less subdued O3. --Ram

Beautiful! I love the dust capture/details....

I agree, I could get something very similar with about 75 hours total for this particular image but this is the total data from two framings/OTAs and there's one more framing left to go and all three framings are using the same data so per image on average it is like 43 hours. Instead of doing 3 separate images I did them all at once but with different OTAs (squid only, narrowfield bat, widefield bat). The main requirement is the ~60 hours of O3 for the Squid region - I think I could've doubled that to 120h and I'd have still noticed a discernable change (I compared the ~40 hour integration to the 60 hour one and I could see a difference). Then for the narrowfield I added some Ha and S2 which brought it to 76 hours ( + 2 for the RGB stars). Then I switched scopes and shot more Ha and S2 but with a greater field to get the FULL bat (but at a lower resolution). I then integrated all this data for both the narrowfield and widefield versions (i.e., both images use the same data but they cover different parts of the framing) since I had it all anyway. This is the only framing where there's nearly 100% overlap (two of the corners are actually about 80 hours worth, and without the O3 data, only 20 hours). Perhaps this image will make more sense, this only about 20 hours worth: http://ram.org/images/space/downloads/Image40.jpg and this is the FULL image from both scopes (just one night's session of each filter from each scope is there as a trial run - you can see the lines and how the framing shifts, and what I mean by "corner" etc - this is NOT present in the final images, the last series I'm still doing). This is also 131 hours total but the parts OUTSIDE of the above framing are only about 40 hours (only Ha and S2). Now I could've done the lower resolution image only and then blown it up for the same result but my goal was to get the Squid and surrounding Ha/S2 in a higher resolution first and THEN do a low resolution of the surrounding areas. It's a technique I've been playing with using drizzle and local normalisation which removes those lines in the test image instead of doing mosaics. I posted this question a long time ago. One reason I'd like to do a mosaic is to get a higher resolution version of a target. For instance, my SV70T setup has a resolution of 2.4"/pixel (a bit soft) and the FC100DF has a resolution of 1.7" (not bad, could be better, I aim for 1"/px). If I wanted to do the full bat with the FC100DF, I'd have to do four panel mosaic but yet what you see above is the main region and typically I want to do a mosaic, 80% of the target fits n my scope but another 20% doesn't not. There's a lot of "wasted space". So I select a region like above and do it at the highest resolution and then do the whole surroundings (see Image40 link) with a lower resolution but integrate all the data together. So I feel I am getting away with doing something less (at least less work) than doing a mosaic which is mostly going to be empty space. I hope all this makes sense. Sorry for the long winded answer but I did have a reason for doing it this way. --Ram

Also includes LBN445, LBN449, LBN453, v419 Cephei. Total integration: 7876 minutes/131+ hours (153/204 x 300/420s or 37h for Ha + 632/47 x 300/420s 58h for O3 + 153/185 x 300/420s or 34h for S2 + 60 x 120s for OSC). Cameras: QHY163M (16mp mono) and QHY247C (24mp OSC) CMOS cooled to -20 and -15 degrees C. Telescopes: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet and Stellarvue SV70T triplet apochromat refractors @ f/4.9 and @ f/4.8. Reducers: Takahashi FC-35 (0.66x) and SFFR70-APO (0.8x). Mount: Paramount MyT. Filters: 1.25" Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2 and 2" Baader UV-IR-Cut Software: TheSkyX Pro, Sharpcap, PixInsight, Topaz Studio 2. Thanks for letting me upload the original files (at least JPEGs). I was going to upload the inline versions. Full resolution images of all images in the series are available at https://www.astrobin.com/hg1c5d/ and https://www.astrobin.com/jdaa90/ and of the primary images at http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.4+7.4.5+6/ou4_sh2-129_nf_c_shorgb_2193m+3489m+2060m+120m_7876m_131h.jpg and http://ram.org/images/space/scope/1.7.4.5/ou4_m_o3_632x300m_3160m_53h.jpg The Squid nebula (ou4) occupies over one degree of the night sky, representing the largest angular extent ever found in a planetary nebula. Known colloquially as the giant squid nebula, it is physically nearly 50 light years across. This bipolar nebula could be one of the nearest of its type known, situated around 2300 light years away, though its possible planetary nebula nature needs confirmation. Even though it is big and close, you're not likely to find it easily. It is an extremely faint nebula emitting primarily O3 signal and resides within the larger Flying Bat nebula (sh2-129) which tends to overshadow it, making it a challenging target to image. The Squid shape is created by the outflow of material driven by a triple system of hot, massive stars catalogued as HR8119 (blue hypergiant) as well as the pulsating variable star v419 Cephei (red supergiant) seen near the center. While their shapes do their names justice, to me, the Squid seated within the Flying Bat more resembles a hand holding an infinity stone (viewed sideways) rather than a Bat carrying a bejeweled Squid on its back. Seeing the Squid situated within the Flying Bat (which apparently has been confirmed) brightly light up in Ha and S2 emissions makes for a fascinating study in contrast and perspective: Most people prefer to assume the head of the bat shape to be part on the bottom left when it is viewed right side up (aka sideways) but to me it's more natural to have the head be where the small blobq of O3 is. This is especially so in the narrowfield framing of my second image, and viewing it sideways, small O3 blob pointing down, and pointing up, all offer something to contemplate. In the widefield framing however it is clear that what most people think is more correct since the wings of the Bat go back a long way. The Flying Bat and Squid project/series became a huge undertaking for me, ending up with a total of more than 131 hours in the final integrated widefield image of both objects and three series of images, with a few versions in each, depending on the data set used for the integration. In the first series of images, I am showcasing the Squid nebula by itself using only the O3 filter data, with and without RGB stars. The mono Squid imaged with the Takahashi FC100DF consists of ~53 hours of total exposure in O3, making it my single longest total exposure of a target with a particular framing with a specific filter/scope/camera combination. The RGB data collected using the QHY247C with the SV70T adds another two hours to the exposure. The total integration for the version with RGB stars is ~55 hours. I also captured another 5.5 hours of O3 data using my SV70T which I added in while creating the narrowfield version by reprocessing using LocalNormalization and Drizzle (which were a big help to me in combining the data for narrowfield and widefield series). There are several versions of the Squid only framing with full capture details at https://www.astrobin.com/jdaa90/ --- the difference between the two monochrome versions of the Squid is the application of HDR Multiscale Transform which reduces the halo on the central star as well as the amount of data used: (A) is based on the full ~53 hours whereas (B) is based on the best 40 hours. (C) and (D) are corresponding versions that combine O3 in the blue channel with RGB stars along with changes in the amount of saturation and brightness. Similarly with (E) and (F), but the Squid is in monochrome mixed with the RGB stars background. Finally, the last image is the re-processed O3 version without and without RGB stars representing ~58 and ~60 hours worth of data. Following the Squid-only series, I worked on the narrowfield (https://www.astrobin.com/hg1c5d/) and widefield (coming soon) series where it is situated between the wingspan of Flying Bat. I started with data from the FC100DF/QHY163M combination which results in a total exposure of 78+ hours for SHO. The SV70T/QHY163M data used for the widefield framing representing another 51+ hours was also integrated in. The RGB data using the QHY247C with the SV70T adds another two hours. The total exposure of the final image with the narrowfield or widefield framing is 131+ hours, my longest to date! For the narrowfield series, I struggled with colour. The Ha (A), the S2 (B), and the L versions that include the O3 data (with and without stars, C and D) are my favourites. The final colour versions were processed additionally using TopazStudio (with and without stars, E and F). As always, thanks for looking! --Ram

Thanks Dave - yeah, that's the case here but I'm actually integrating data from two resolutions and both are undersampled but one more so than the other. So it shouldn't be occurring IMO. But I will investigate further to make sure the same histogram is being applied. --Ram

Hi all, I'm puzzled by this behaviour of Drizzle and LocalNormalization. Here are the two images I'm referring to - after Integration, only an AutoSTF has been applied to make the image: Drizzle only: http://ram.org/images/space/downloads/ou4_sh2-129_Ha_nf.v0_d.resized.jpg Drizzle with LocalNormalization: http://ram.org/images/space/downloads/ou4_sh2-129_Ha_nf.v0_l_d.resized.jpg I've never seen this behaviour before and I've experimented a lot with both these algorithms. The Drizzle data is actually a bit soft (which I've never seen happen - almost always it improves things) and appears to be missing/details/decreased. LocalNormalization for the first time actually brings out details/improves things in a noticeable manner - usually I find it helps even out gradients a bit but it's never as extreme as this. Does anyone know if this is fine (I'm actually quite happy with the LN image) or if I'm doing something wrong and if there are other things like this that I'm missing that could influence the signal levels. I'm using the default parametres for both Drizzle and LN (and for most other steps - I'm using GESD Test for ImageIntegration). Thanks a lot! --Ram

Thank you all! I appreciate it. Also especially Olly, you probably don't remember but a few (3-4) years back, I had just gotten back into astronomy for the first time since my teenage years and I was dabbling in lofi-EAA and I saw your stunning image of M51 and I asked you managed to do something like that and you said a few things but the main thing that stuck with me was that you put in 20+ hours of time on it to start. That was one of the key exchanges that began my move from EAA to AP to eventually AP with long total exposures and complex images. So thank you, and thank you for the inspiration! --Ram