Rodd

Here is a full RGB version. Still needs some hours. Maybe luminance ( my sky limits me to 60 sec though. Not sure it’s worth it. May be Ha/OIII

1 hour ago, Snoani said:

Thank you very much.  Honestly, microlensing has generally never been a problem for me using this camera.  I've owned this camera for 3 years and the first and only time that I have come across microlensing was earlier this year when I was imaging the ghost nebula in Cassiopeia. Gamma Cassiopeiae came out square in that image but I hadn't experienced it previously or since.

I wonder why. I get it all the time. And it sucks

In case anyone didn't know--here is the home of the green dragon (who can turn blue at will). Another bicolor (red and green) image.  A bit rough, but hey, give me a break-I need much more data!

I have never seen a mono image composed purely with green subs.  It goes to in space show you, there IS green in space not associated with PNs.  In trut.h, this reflection nebula is comprised of both blue and green light, but I have yet to capture blue.  I am debating whether I need more green before switching to blue.  

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  80 120 sec green.  Bin 2x2.

Very nice--How did you avoid microlensing artifacts around the bright star?  I use the ASI 1600 and find it to be atrocious with stars.  I am shooting this one now, and the bright star is terrible

It is strange but I have beeter luck with bicolor broadband images than I do with bicolor naerowband images.  In fact, what usually happens is my bicolor btraodband image ends up better than a full RGB version for some reason.  After a coupleof decent nights, I decided to see what I would end up with using just red and green data for NGC 1977.  The stars are not colored very well, and this is an HDR composition using 120 sec and 10 sec subs to restore clipped stellar cores, so I definitely want to collect blue data (and luminance), so the stars come out nicely colored.  Also, I simply must replace the ASI 1600 with the 2600.  The star microlensing artifacts are just not acceptabl

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  139 120.sec and 90 10 sec red, and 100 120 sec and 90 10sec green, bin 2x2. About 8.5 hours.

19 hours ago, Neil_104 said:

Glad to hear that 👍 What had happened to your mount prior?

A motor encoder blew. Plus bearings were rough and the PEC curve had been lost. 

I'm back baby!  My first new data in months.  I got my Mach 1 back from TNR and it is much improved.  It has a new PEC curve, new bearings, grease, etc.  What a difference.  My guide graph actually looks respectable for a change.  Also, I finally got to try the new .99x fl;attener, which has a spot size of 1um to 30mm, which covers my sensor (it might be 20 mm, but then its 2um to 30--something like that).  So far I am impressed (which translates to so far I can't complain)-though it doesnt do much to reduce the ASI 1600 star microlensing artifacts.  I fixed what I could.  I botched the framing for NGC 1333 big time.  I am hoping it can still make a nice image in the end.  

NGC-1977: 94 120 sec red, Bin 2

NGC 1333: 144 120 sec red, Bin 2

Reprocess.  Its all about the halo and avoiding boundary lines within the halo.  GCs are clearer.

2 hours ago, Snoani said:

I absolutely love it.  Great capture and processing.  Well done.  

Thanks, Snoani

21 minutes ago, WolfieGlos said:

Cracking image, nice detail and lovely star colours! 

Thanks Wolfie

5 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

Mmmmn, my favourite galaxy! The only astro-related pic I have on the wall is the Hubble image of that. Yours is a cracking shot, I'd say.

Thanks Cajun. My favorite as well. It always had been. 

4 minutes ago, Graham Darke said:

Reminds me of the Hubble image. I like it. 

Thanks Graham!

My mount arrived on Sunday.  I will set it up over the next week or so as work and weather permit.  I think I will use the TOA and new flattener.  Meanwhile, I decided to try a data set from  Insight Observatory in Namibia.  10 hours LRGB taken with AG Optical 20" Dal Kirkum and FLI 16803 camera..  I was surprised that I needed to use DBE on data collected from such a pristine site.  This is my first attempt.  I have since twiddled and fumbled my way through a few dozen versions--I think I will stick with this one for now.  The dust lane is too dark, and the background galaxies could be brighter.  I'll have to start from scratch.

Version 1

Version 2-I think more natural

7 hours ago, Elp said:

It's difficult I know. I tend to use my C6 95pc in HS config. I'd like to use it F6.3 reduced but it's painfully slow in comparison even though the detail on the smaller targets is better.

You like HS?

1 hour ago, Elp said:

Unless if you've controlled the image acquisition parameters as well as the processing I don't think you can reach a balanced conclusion from the results above. Just blinking the two you can clearly see they have been processed slightly different which will skew any judgement. Both images are however excellent. From my experience the refractor will always been sharper on edges, even if it's aperture is smaller than the SCT, but for intricate wispy details the aperture of the SCT normally wins out with the edges being softer.

I agree.  Theye are too close to tell.  I guess in my sky, on most nights, there is little advantage to using the C11.  It will build signal faster, but any such benefit is tempered by a significantly resuced FOV.  When Nebula season comes around, I struggle to find suitable framings with the C11.

1 hour ago, Nik271 said:

I think the limit of resolution for both scopes is not their aperture but the atmospheric seeing conditions. In most locations the seeing introduces 2 arcsecond blur over a long exposure, whereas the resolution limit of   100mm scope dictated by aperture is just 1.3 arcseconds. In principle C11 should produce a less noisy image but again after noise reduction any advantage of this  will be trumped by the seeing.

Yeah.  I didnt realize that 1.3 was the lilit for 4".  That is better seeing than I get 99% of the time.  1.3 is pretty good resolution. Maybe the FSQ is the scope I should use and forget about long focal length work--at least in my back yard.  

4 minutes ago, jjohnson3803 said:

Great pic!  LRGB shots are gorgeous, but I still like B&W.  Might be nostalgia for when I did astrophotography with 103aO/E emulsions on glass plates.  😁

Wow--virtually a lost art.  Film AP is amazing.  How to know one is pointing at the target?  Film development takes time--focusing on stars is understandable, but framing?  A very different skill set.

I like black and white images as well (Ha).  I suppose one can look at LRGB images in black and white too.  There is something about black and white images.

6 hours ago, alan potts said:

That's a cut above Rodd, lovely image.

Alan

Thanks Alan, glad you like it

22 hours ago, windjammer said:

Very nice!

Thanks!

2 hours ago, Beulah said:

Sorry, HD not HP. It's that lovely red star next to M13.

Ahh. It’s a bit over stretched and over saturated around the rim but in my sky I have to stretch pretty hard 

1 hour ago, Neil_104 said:

Really nice image Rodd. I like the subtle diffraction spikes on the brighter stars as well - did you add these in post-processing?

I imaged M13 back in the summer myself and need to get round to processing it. I took it with my C6 at a focal length of 1225mm, so got in good and close. I find processing globulars to be very satisfying as you can ramp up the sharpening and just reveal more and more detail in the core.

Thanks Neil. No, those spikes are artifacts of the sensor and/processing.  I don’t go crazy over stars. They are quite difficult to get right

42 minutes ago, Beulah said:

Beautiful; Lovely composition with HP 150998. 

I haven't seen M13 this year due to exceptionally cloudy nights. It's usually a visual staple for me. 

Thanks Beulah. Not sure what HP 150998 is. Is that a catalogue reference?

1 hour ago, Graham Darke said:

Interesting. 
 

I do these comparisons to try and decide upon what scope I want to use.  I change scopes maybe once per year.  Setting up is not one of my strong points

38 minutes ago, Graham Darke said:

Not much in it is there. Were the number of subs in each image similar? 

They have about the same integration time; about 5 hours or so.