Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Rodd

Members
  • Content Count

    6,173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Rodd

  1. Ahh--I found it. Hidden is right. thank you.
  2. SGL no longer allows edits (at least not on my computer) so I have no choice but to post a revision--the HaLRGB image was to saturated.
  3. A much discussed topic. Thought I'd show an example. This is NGC 2403 in Camelopardalis. The first image is an HaRGB image with about 2 hours each of Ha R, G, and B using an FSQ 106 (native) and ASI 1600. The second image includes about 2 hours of luminance. I wanted at least 4 hours of luminance but the clouds rolled in unexpectedly. It seems I never get a full clear night any more--even when it is supposed to be clear. As I am looking at a week of snow and rain, followed by 2 weeks of Moon--I must make do with what I have. I was fortunate to have better conditions for the luminance t
  4. As promised--here is the final image with a full data set 85 Ha and 73 OIII--13.2 hours. If I doubled everything and only used subs from a good seeing night, I am sure it would be improved. But this is it for me. The difference here is one of sharpness throughout, really. It is subtle, but the details on the wings is sharper--and the helmet too. Also the extensions are more prominent and more transparent tried to keep the background/stars/palette the same as I like them. Note, these are not Ha stars--but colored stars, almost like RGB stars, which is not typically how I portray narrowba
  5. Thanks Goran--yes--there is a lot there. But it seems strange that it does not really appear in the nebula itself despite the Ha stack being bright throughout the nebula. It sows up on the fringes.
  6. Thanks, Doc. Yes, this is a rare target where OIII is much stronger than Ha. I intend to collect another 3 hours or so of OIII tonight to finish the image. I will post the new image and the Ha and OIII masters when I am done.
  7. Thanks Carole. For me its tricky because it is so low in a very LP rich section of my sky. That and bicolor images always give me a bit of trouble.
  8. Here's a crop so you don't have to bother clicking
  9. A midway point - I collected 3 hours of new OIII. Not enough for as clean an image as I would like--but I think much improved. seems more balanced, softer, with much better stars. 3 more hours should do it. Then, I really need to think about collecting more Ha during a night of really good seeing.
  10. Due to the perpetual bad weather, my imaging time has been reduced to a couple days a month. So it takes me a very long time to finish an image. This afforded me with the opportunity to compare image taken of the same target with a single scope setup vs multiple setups (with .6x reducer)....the very long form of binning the color and not binning the lum. For the first of these images, I used the OIII data collected from a couple of years ago with the FSQ 106 and .6x reducer and the Ha collected with the FSQ 106 native (without reducer). I registered the wide field data with the native FOV
  11. Rodd

    NGC 3184

    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
  12. Rodd

    NGC 3184

    The third one was a joke
  13. Rodd

    NGC 3184

    Reprocess. Better Ha distribution
  14. Rodd

    NGC 3184

    Made some improvements
  15. 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!
  16. Try here--this is where I got my images.. i red, v green, b blue https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/merggal/
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Rodd

    Arp 148

    That’s probably something j should have done, protected them so they stdd we more visible
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.