Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Rodd

Members
  • Posts

    7,654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Rodd

  1. Rodd

    NGC 3628

    Here is a reprocessed version. I had a sleep and had at it again.
  2. I was fianlly able to adda decent luminance to this image. What a difference it makes. I was fortunate that seeing during the luminance shoot was the best seeing among all the channels. The tail is still lacking due to my sky, but I don't think I can do much about that with the TOA 130. I might be able to capture it with a lot of hours using the FSQ 106. I will ponder that possibility for the future. Not likely to change scopes just for that, and galaxy season is not optimal FSQ time. Maybe if my sky would permit nice star fields and galaxy clusters, but they aren''t very satisfying with their shortcomings. Anyway, I am pleased with this image. While it may not be the most revealing of the tain and the surrounding fain t galaxies and clusters, I believe it to be a decent representation. It makes me want to bring out the C11! TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600. About 16 hours of data. 120 sec and 10 sec RGB subs, and 60 sec Lum subs.
  3. I managed to pull out more of the outer arms and glow
  4. Thanks, GT. The Canaries, if only!
  5. I use scnr about every image. Mostly for green removal. For broadband images, I try not to manipulate the palette much. I will occasionally bump it up if color is almost lacking, and for stars. I think most color problems gif me are dud to my sky.
  6. Thanks, Jim. I tend to agree. I was befuddled when PIs photometric color calibration tool resulted in the hyper blue version. The manual CC tool rendered the less blue. That’s a huge difference. Ad far as the image goes, I am ok with the core and disc. If seeing had been good, I suppose it would be pretty decent. The problem I have is the outer arms. 32 hours is on the long side, and the arms are barely visible and it took me about 50 tries to accomplish it. That means my sky just does not support what I want to do. It’s sad, but I am questioning whether I wish to continue; at least not from CT. I am working on a move to Australia. Maybe then I will find what I seek. For the record, I have finally processed this image to my satisfaction. Here is the final version: a bit better. I think I have squeezed all I can out of the data
  7. A vpretty simple question--is it too blue or is that OK. Opinions are like weeds, everybody has them. Better to share when asks then when its not desired. I have always considerd this forum a good place for questions. Thats how we learn. No longer. Its not worth the effort.
  8. A little bright in core. I'd say a histogram tweak downward picture widee will fix it and make it look real
  9. I rfrianlly managed to capture blue with the TOA 130. I had previously posted a version using FSQ 106 blue data. There is a significant improvement to the immage, in resolution and in color. In fact, the color maybe too much. That is my inquiry. The first image is nom palette adhustments - this is the palette after color calibration. I did not change the palette at all through processing. Changes in dynamic ranfge have an effect on the palette, but that is just teh way it is. The second image is identical to the first, but I bumped the saturation down just a bit in the galaxy (not the stars). So, is the hyper blue of the first image better, or was I right to tame the color a bit in the second. Should I tame it further? A second question pertains to the core - it lacks the reddish/yellowish glow that I expected. I have a version where I add it by bumping red and green a bit, but that is a horse of a different color, and represents a manipulated palette. If its correct, I will consider it, but it might not be. Hard to say EDIT: To complicate things, I reprocessed the image and did a manual color calibration and wow is it different. The photometric color calibration made it hyper blue. The manual one seems n=better to me--its the third version. TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600. HDR image using 120 sec and 10 sec subs. About 32 Hours Full Color Slightly reduced saturation Manual Color Calibration
  10. Another insight observatory dataset. This one was very poor and I don’t think I will use IO anymore. The LRGB data was so bad it couldn’t be used: severe gradients, amp glow, and over exposure. I decided to just use the Ha and OIII and make a bicolor image. Even with this I had to crop a large portion away. Very disappointing. The Ha and OIII, or what there is of it, is not bad. 12.5” RC with SBIG 11000. I think about 6 hours.
  11. Thanks, Gabriel. It will be interesting to see if TOA blue data will make a noticeable difference.
  12. I have been away for a month in Australia (amazing to see Orion at zenith - inverted, of course!) and prior to that it was cloudy for months, so this image has not been completed. I have a good Ha and red channel, what I think is a fairly poor green channel, and no blue or lum. So I used blue data I captured with the FSQ 106 a few years ago to see if it would yield a respectable image. Jury's still out. The blue through it out of whack a bit, both in teh galaxy and stars. If I have time to capture TOA blue and lum (and maybe better green), I think it might develope into a decent image. TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600. Red: 92 120 sec and 90 10 sec; Green 196 120 sec and 90 10sec; Ha 176 300 sec; Blue-FSQ data 60 120 sec.
  13. Thanks Olly! Your “not knowing anything about it” is worth more than the opinions of a 1,000 self professed masters!
  14. Thanks. There is plenty of clear sky in your computer! Many of the images I have posted lately are crops or reprocesses.
  15. That’s half the fun, seeing if folks can identify the target. That wasn’t the purpose with this one, as I figured everyone was familiar with the menagerie of the Rosette Nebula.
  16. Thanks, glad you like it!
  17. Thanks Bryan. Yes, I love the Rosette menagerie. Lots of critters in the parade.
  18. Thanks Goran. I wish seeing was 5/5 so the scopes optics would be the limiting factor
  19. Hard to say. It wasn’t great for some but ok for others. But still less than 3” FWHM. I think the image is 2.6” or something like that. I think the SII was better, around 2.2”. For me that is pretty good. When subs are less than 2.0 I am extatic.
  20. A pack of hounds chasing a leopard leaping to safety into a tree. A creative mind might consider the strand of stars a dangling rope up which the cat will attempt to scramble. TOA 130 with .99x flattener and asi 1600. About 25.5 hours SHO
  21. Rodd

    M33

    Too red. That was my main complaint. Too pink in non-Ha areas. Matter of opinion, I guess
  22. Rodd

    M33

    Thanks Mack. Perhaps botched is to harsh a term.
×
×
  • 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.