Rodd

I don’t think so. SGL has changed since I first joined. That is how it seems to me, but it could just be it had changed with respect to me. Hard to say as I only have one perspective

The third one was a joke

Reprocess. Better Ha distribution

Thanks Jim

Made some improvements

I found this comparison enlightening. The first image is the APOD for some month in 2000, collected (I believe) with the Lowell Observatory scope. Mine was collected with a 5" scope in Bortle 6. (TOA 130 and ASI 1600). My image is cropped to the scale of about the C11Edge native (2,800 mm FL). I plan on imaging this one again with the C11Edge and it will be interesting to see if there is any difference between what it can do and the TOA 130 (in my sky--obviously it is more capable....but a Ferrari would lose to a Moped if gets a flat tire!

Try here--this is where I got my images.. i red, v green, b blue https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/merggal/

You also have to look at the level column--5 is a color image 1 is raw. I am not sure what 2-4 mean. Obviously you want 1 or 2 (2 might be calibrated?). Not sure. I do know that the subs I used were calibrated and aligned. The problem with the filters is they often give wavelengths--so if you don't work with them every day--its hard to know without having a master list to work from. As I said--getting the data is a pain. I was fortunate to have a friend link me to a list of prefound subs. I will link that same list to you here when I have access to my computer later

Yes--you have to cull the list and assemble the RGB sets yourself. Each one of those files is a single sub. that is what is time consuming. You have to open each one and look--to make sure its of the same target with the same FOV. And you have to know something about teh filters.

Well--I did not say they were perfect. Nowhere near as what is able to be made (at that level) today (still far better than my $1,000 camera). Also, there is only 1 sub per channel. Also, these target are 500,000,000 to a billion light years away. As I said--I bet if there were 10 subs per channel, the images would be amazing

You also have to keep in mind that the technology that they used was cutting edge stuff--way beyond what was available to the general public. The cameras cost millions. I would be willing to bet that if you compared the Hubble camera to a modern amateur camera say an ASI 1600--or a higher end CCD ($10-15,000 range) the Hubble camera would leave it in the dust.

Agreed--but if one has the best there is, shouldn't they be afforded ENOUGH of it? Can you imagine what the images would look like if instead of 1 sub per channel there were 10? I found the Hubble data sets to be way noisier than I thought they would be, and way less accepting of sharpening.

That is very low resolution. The pixel size must be huge. I dream of the same FOV and aperture with teeny tiny pixels, so one can zoom WAY in and crop images that resemble long focal length images.

That’s probably something j should have done, protected them so they stdd we more visible

The upper one is actually two merging galaxies.