Rodd

Het guys--just thought I'd try drizzle integration. Drizzle is best if used with allot of subs--well 250 seems like enough. The image is 4x the size of a normally integrated image--but I think that only shows up under full resolution viewing. Not sure its the way to go--thought I'd try it and see. I like the normal size--the full is too much as usual. Edit: I down sampled the drizzled image so its the same size as normal (because I like the version best I think. Just experimenting) Down sampled

I once compared a high FWHM sub with a low FWHM sub and there were discernable differences in the non stellar details. So, its not necessarily the stars that bother me when the FWHM values are high--but the reduction in sharpness if fine structural details. It makes sense--if FWHM is used to assess focus--higher than normal FWHM can mean a softness in resolution. (I refer to significant differences in FWHM). But this one is not bad with respect to that. I have never had much luck with Decon in the linear state--can't seem to get the hang of it. I use it for fine sharpening though (sometimes). MT is another tool that I sometimes use but sometimes I don't like its appearance. In this image, for instance, a touch of MT is ok--but too much and it looks unnatural. More data I suppose is the best solution to many poblems. That and color--adding the other channel wwill certainly help. Rodd

I did 5min with the TOA 130 at F7.7 for M16 and M17 and only needed 3-4 hours. Those targets are brighter, I relaize. If I have to go much above 2min it defeats the purpose of shooting at F3. The veil worked well at 60sec and it only had 4 hours total (2 of Ha and 2 of OIII)-but again, its a bit brighter. I think another 2 hours of 2min subs should solve it. I could change teh gain--but I do not really know about gain. I guess if I make the higher I can leave the exposures shorter? Don't really know. Rodd

Thanks Olly--"Scratchy" is a good way to put it. So you think more data huh? I guess it makes a degree of sense--I only have a bit over 5 hours--not a huge amount. I did see quite an improvement with 120 sec vs 60 sec subs. Maybe this target is just not bright enough for 60 sec subs. A couple more hours of 2min subs should help. Rodd

Thanks Doc.....I think I have enough Ha now. Looking forward to getting the other channels. Rodd

I stand corrected--but I wonder how much of a difference there would be. I have used SFS to choose my best subs and output those subs to a new directory so they carry the SFS weight header--but I don't see a big difference. Sometimes just by virtue of a higher sub count, leaving inferior subs in can bring down noise and increase SNR (as long as the subs are not unfit). I took out 20 subs with high FWHM and the final image had a FWHM less than .1 arcsec lower--but the SNR was lower and the noise higher. I know its all a balancing act. I guess the experiment would be--leave all subs in but use SFS to weigh them and integrate using SFS and then without the SFS weight analysis. I think this is a case where theory may outshine a bit (assuming the same subs were used, one with the weight data and one without the weight data). Anyway--I added 58 2min subs (couldn't get 60 due to clouds). So the image now has 252 subs, 194 1min and 58 2min. I also used less noise control and was more conservative with the brightness. I think its the sheer number of stars that has me annoyed. Maybe if my FWHM values were much lower, it would be better. But that would mean starting over with new data!

I don't think that having more weight in subframe selector means that the subs add more to the image. I thought that was just a ranking system to identify the best subs. I chose the best 194 by using FWHM, eccentricity and SNR. Amounts to the same. Rodd

Thanks peter. I think I improved it allot with the last one Rodd

Here's 194 best subs. Not sure if the differences are due to the subs election, or more careful processing. Still unsure about collecting 60 or so 2min subs. I was doing 5min with the TOA 130 at F7.7. I figure at F3, 1-2min should be enough. Full resolution mode is where this image deteriorates.

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, ASI 1600 with 3um Ha filter. 209 60 sec subs. I was a bit underwhelmed by the results of this one, having been very satisfied with the Ha stack of the Veil. I suppose the Veil Nebula is a bit brighter than Sh2-119, but I thought 209 subs would make up for it somewhat. I am tempted to double my exposure time to 120 sec for this one. I would get less subs, but I would add those to these and benefit from a high count with perhaps third being 2min in duration. Then again, the longer I look at this image, the less I feel it needs a boost of depth and signal--except perhaps around the edges of the image where there should be smooth, faint nebulosity. On the other hand, when I find myself trying to convince myself that "its fine", most often it is not. Conditions were questionable. It was clear, but even with good focus the FWHM values were between 3.5 and 4.5--sometimes 5. The stars don't look bloated. I suppose with a pixel scale of 2.46 arcsecs per pixel, a FWHM value of 5 is still only 2 pixels. Nyquist says 3 is optimum.

Thanks Barry. Yes, it should be a fun Summer--especially when the nights start getting longer. 4.5 hours is a bit on the lean side. Rodd

Check here: https://optcorp.com/products/takahashi-0-6x-f-3-0-reducer-for-fsq...

Thanks Richard. I think the FSQ 106 helps too Rodd

Here's is a slightly different palette--the blue has less green. Not sure which I prefer.

Thanks Olly. I am pleased --I could do without the white areas. Not really sure what they are--maybe the SII regions that are not represented? They are common in images of the Veil (at lest bicolor images). I have reduced them somewhat, but they are difficult to saturate. So far, f3 has not been too frustrating, once the connection issue is solved. Rodd