Rodd

Data from Insight Observatory. I’ve decided to limit my data dalliances to targets that I can’t image due to their declination.  This is from a system that shoots at 1.3”/pix, but I binned it 2x2 due to the size of the image.

Finally, a wider field image of this target that doesn’t scream out to be cropped.  I wonder how far the extension reaches at top. 

2 hours ago, Magnum said:

nice detail and colours

Thanks, P.I!

7 hours ago, simmo39 said:

V nice!

Thanks S!

1 hour ago, mackiedlm said:

Thats excellent - stunning detail.

Thanks Mack

5 hours ago, Spr said:

Lovely

Thanks

I wasn’t satisfied with my previous Rosette experiment where I used TOA Ha and FSQ OIII and SII to make a SHO image, then inserted the TOA Ha as a luminance.  

This time, I mage a SHO image with all FSQ data (Ha, OIII, and SII), then inserted the TOA Ha as luminance. It made a big difference. The palette was much more balanced.  I still used Bin 2 (which I usually do with TOA data that is .79”.  I still plan to collect OIII and SII with the TOA.  I am confident it will improve the final image, especially if conditions are good. 
 

TOA 130 about 10 hours Ha

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, about 5 hours each of Ha, OIII, and SII

Interesting framing.  It gives it a real 3D look 

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

Stunning shot Rodd, one of your best in a very large list.

Alan

Thanks Alan. 

5 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

Oh wow this is beautiful! I know diddly nothing about processing but I know when it’s right.

Thanks, sunshine….like a ray of….solar radiation on a gloomy day!

2 hours ago, Kinch said:

Hi Rodd......I just looked at my web page (https://www.kinchastro.com/rosette-nebula.html) and I have 8 different Rosette images, processed at various times (2020 - 2022) with the same data. It was fun doing things slightly differently each time but none of them are the "final image". Perhaps in a year's time I will go back and play with the data again.

Bottom line - we never achieve that perfect image. We amuse ourselves when we have the time, trying to make that final image that we will never want to change.  It rarely comes!  

In this instance, you must ask yourself if the time needed to gather more data with the TOA will give you that final image (never to be touched again)......OR....would your time be better spent picking a new target and starting afresh with TOA or FSQ  - as pleases you. Nobody, but yourself can answer the question that you have thrown open to the floor here. In the end, only you will truly see the minute differences between one "final image" and the next "final image" and it follows then, that only you will decide what is..... THE final ... that needs no more data...no more processing!

In general I agree. But in this case, my question pertains more to the data then the final product.  Would the data be better if I collect equal amounts of OIII and SII with the TOA. So I refer to image potential not necessarily the final image that I manage to create

9 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Lovely image quality 👍

Thanks Spock (or should I say evil Spock?).  Wondering if all TOA data would be noticiably better

Due to endless nights of cloud, rain, wind, fog, etc., etc., ect., I decided to experiment with my recently acquired Ha data, as I am won't to do.  I used OIII and SII data from the FSQ 106 reduced (318 mm) and Ha data from the TOA native (well reduced by .01x).  Since I always use Ha as a luminance in SHO images, there is quite a bit more Ha influence in the image than OIII or SII.  As there is quite a  difference between pixel scales of .79" and 2.46", I had to upsample the OIII and SII to achieve alignment.  The image is displayed at .79", which represents Bin 1 for the TOA.  The big question is would it be worthwhile to collect OIII and SII with the TOA.  Opinions on this are most welcome. 

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600 (Ha: 50 300 sec); FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 (OIII: 47 300 sec; SII: 54 300 sec)

2 hours ago, gorann said:

Both looks great Rodd! I would rotate the image 90° counter-clockwise to get the leaping cheetah in the correct position😉.

Don’t forget the pack of dogs at his heels and the other members of the menagerie!  

7 hours ago, simmo39 said:

Not much in it to my eyes, I would be happy with either.

Thanks. I would be too. But last night it was supposed to be clear with good seeing until dawn.  And the seeing was amazing, I was getting subs of ngc 1491 with FWHM of 1.6”. I couldn’t wait until the Rosette rose. But then, after 10 subs of < 2”, the clouds rolled in. I only got 10 additional subs, but the FWHM of the stack dropped by .5”!   It’s amazing what good seeing will do to an image. Now it’s hard to be satisfied until I get 100 subs under good seeing!

I finally can see the fossil footprint.  Many images taken with large scopes concentrate on the brighter part of this nebula.  But to understand its name, a wider FOV is needed.  As most of the signal is in the brighter region, widefiled shots don't seem to be that common.  A fairly tricky image to process due to the dynamic range between the bright "heel" and the much fainter "toes".   Seeing was a rare "good", resulting in a FWHM of just under 2".  Ubfortunately, the Moon was near full and closer than I would have liked to the target.  I hope seeing is decent when shoot the OIII and SII.  Maybe I'll shoot RGB`

TOA 130 with ,.99x flattener and ASI 1600. 54 300 sec Ha. Bin1

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The lighter has more information, the darker has more mood... or so it seems to me. Keep 'em both!

Olly

Edit: I should have added that both are flawless.

Thanks, Olly  Wise words, as usual.  

I have always wanted to do a close in of the center of the Rosette, but the closest I ever got was cropping wider FOV images.  No matter how hard I tried, it just didn't fool anybody.  I hadn't planned on doing it this time, but clouds didn't leave me much choice.  I started imaging at midnight, and out of the targets available, decided on the Rosette.  Seeing was only fair, and I got a late start, so I will be adding Ha to this while the Moon is up before collecting OIII and SII.  Themn, maybe RGB.  

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  3nm Ha: 40 300 sec Bin 1

I posted 2 versions, a darker and a lighter becuase I can't choose.

25 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Are you sure Rodd?!?

The brown dust looks phenomenal, I really like this region in particular.

Thanks , Doc and No! I’m not sure. Normally it would be easy to do it and if it didn’t help much…..”oh well”.  But seeing as I get only a few nights a month to image, and even less for broad band, I hate to lose a night (or two) on a fools errand. 

I thought I needed much more data, but now I am not sure.  I have put allot of effort into making as much out of the data as I can on aacount of poor weather.  Here is the final Image.  Do you think luminance will help?  I only took about half as much blue as the other channels, but I dont think its blue deficient, and the blue is not overly noisy.  Seeing was poor for the blue, but I dont think it hurt it too much.  I could collect Ha/OIII, but not sure I want to go in that direction.  Luminance or bust, I think.  Wiould it be worth spedning 5-6 hours collecting luminance, or leave well enouggh alone, the law of diminishing returns and all.

14 minutes ago, Snoani said:

 

I am sorry to hear the extent of your problem.  As I have only experienced in once, I haven't delved into it too much. I wonder if it is a problem that really only affects some 1600MM cameras, therefore being a bit of a lottery.  

I have looked closer at the subs for the image that I mentioned above and notice that it was only really occurring in the RGB and not the luminance.  I don't know if this is significant though.  I tend to use the same exposure length for all LRGB filters and as the luminance lets more light through than the colour, maybe I have oversaturated that star somewhat.  

I'm not overly convinced by this suggestion and I think I am clutching at straws.  

I think your probably right about the sensor.  Not sure about the L vs RGB. It is much more noticeable as focal ratio increases. 

1 hour ago, mackiedlm said:

very nice image.

 Thanks, Mack!

3 hours ago, gorann said:

Yes, I really like it and the blue reflection nebula comes out quite nicely. Regarding microlensing could it be Rodd that you are using longer exposures than @Snoani, whatever he/she uses? Just a guess.

I don’t think it matters. I experimented with short exposures and while the artifacts were absent in individual subs, they were present in the combined Images. 

Attempting a broadband image of this target.  As usual, I am feelinmg underwhelmed with the data.  I had a darker than usual couple of nights.  Seeing was acceptable, but the data is klacking.  I was frorced to add a bit of Ha I captured using the FSQ last year--only about 15% in the red channel. This was necessary to correct the color palette, which was too maroon at left and cloudy greenish at center.  I am not sure if I should try luminance, or keep going with RGB.  The thing is, to be this close in on a target tghe resolution has to be very sharp, so seeing has to be good.  While the TOA that shoots with a resolution of .79" is better than the C11Edge that shoots at .4" (with reducer), it is still to much resolution for my seeing-hence the 2x2 binning, which brings tghe resolution to 1.58".  This image looks a bit soft to me.  Maybe the FSQ is really the better option for me.  Using a 2600 level sensor would provide a somewhat larger FOV-but even higher resolution (pixels are 3.76nm and mine are 3.8 nm).  Still unsure as to which scope is best for me.

I collected 15 min of 10 sec subs to recover clipped star cores.  I did not collect blue 10 sec subs, so the stars are not what I had hoped.  Come to think of it, maybe 15 min is not enough to recover star cores--I did capture 15 min of 10" subs for all channels for my Running Man image and the stars are still not colored nicely.

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600. Red: 131 120" and 90 10"; Green 106 120" and 90 10"; Blue 45 120" (no 10" yet). Bin 2x2

5 hours ago, Stu said:

Nice image. Moved to the Imaging - Deep Sky forum

Thanks. I didn’t realize I posted it to the wrong forum. Sorry!