Rodd

Well. It breaks down pretty quickly because processing can’t really be the same unless you use precise settings in the tools. But it’s not linear, so a particular curve for one maynot have the same effect. In short, the processing was close, but not really the same. The sky probably is the dictator in the room.

Thanks so much Win.

This should give some pause when attempting to choose between a small scope and a large scope. One image is taken with C11Edge with .7x reducer, the other with FSQ 106 with .6x reducer. I linear fit the FSQ image to the C11image after registration, so we are looking at precisely the same thing. There is some difference between the outer regions , but those are mostly due to processing. The focus of the comparison is tghe detail in the pillares of creation, which sem pretty close to me. It doesnt make my life any easiere! C11Edge FSQ 106

Thanks Olly.

Indeed.

Thanks Bryan. I am glad you like it.

Thanks Swoop. Yeah, my sky makes picking up faint fuzzies a bit tough. These are bright enough to come through. I can't imagine imaging from Bortle 1 in great seeing.

I was surprised when I reprocessed this data to find that stars at the core were visible. I tried imaging a globular cluster with the C11Edge, thinking the long focal length would be better to capture individual stars in the core. But after reprocessing this data, taken with the TOA 130, I realized that the core could be captured with smaller scopes. I had planned to post a Hubble image of the core region so the two can be compared, but the Hubble image couldn't be downloaded. Oh well, mine will have to do. I can finally see the "hairy" nature of this GC. Supposedly, my mount is fixed and will soon be on it's way back to me. I won't be the only one relieved!

This image represents the most improved of all data sets for me. I collecetd the data years ago and have not been able to process it very well at all. Not much more needs to be said. I am posting the before and after images. The "original" is far from the original--it represented the best I could do after near countless attempts. Most of the early attempts hd no dust at all, except for a hint of shadow at the darkest points. At least some dust is visible in the original. There is no Ha in this image. Next time I'm thinking 20 hours with Ha. FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 LRGB about 6 hours. Original New

Here's the bubble taken with a 5" refractor. The scale is much smakller--but at full resolution, are more details are visible?

Here is a rarity--an image I am satisfied with for what it's worth (a long and tortuous path). The problem is, the "for what it's worth" part of the sentence. Let me explain: The Ha of this image was taken at a focal length of 1,960 mm using a C11Edge and ASI 1600 camera. I always use Ha as a luminance layer in my SHO palettes (A lightness layer in PI I think, which is different than luminance). But in general, the L caries the detail in narrowband images (except on rare occasions when OIII is greater, like with Thor's Helmet, or in OIII portions of the Veil). The native resolution of the system reduced by .7x is .4" and bin 2 is .8" (.78 according to Astrobin). While not a displeasing rendering, I am a bit underwhelmed for the focal length and aperture. I guess a better choice in my sky is a resolution of 1.5-2, which shouldn't be surprising, I guess.

Ha ha! Thanks Spock. Quite logical

Thanks Olly. Yes, Garuda’s right wing is a giant seahorse. I wish I had centered the target better. I had no idea how it would come out.

I call this Garuda. I am not sure the OIII portrayed in the wings is accurate. I do know it too me years to pull it out by ballancing the histogram. By far my best effort (out of uncounted flops). FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600. About 16 hours SHO.

Thanks Elp. I think palette is the least consistent aspect of AP.

It really depends on the screen, which I find frustrating

Thanks. Still a bit cartoonish, but it is much improved.

I almost posted again the orientation you used. I like your version. I don’t think I will be able to complete this to my liking. It’s the best I can do. The details in the nebula are ok. But the surroundings are weak. Saturation a bit high. Yours is very natural.

This data was in the top 3 that I could not render halfway decent, no matter how often I tried. The target is low in my sky, amidst the most LP and frequent clouds, where seeing is as poor, so I suspected the data was much worse than it now appears to be. M78 is one of my favorite targets. I really am looking forward to capturing a lot of good data for this target FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600. About 30 hours. I decided not to include Ha.

This data was in the top 3 that I could not render halfway decent, no matter how often I tried. The target is low in my sky, amidst the most LP and frequent clouds, where seeing is as poor, so I suspected the data was much worse than it now appears to be. M78 is one of my favorite targets. I really am looking forward to capturing a lot of good data for this target FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600. About 30 hours. I decided not to include Ha.

Thanks Mackie. I didn’t either.

Thanks Dave

Yeah, it’s kind of low for me too. It’s a shame.

Thanks,Doc. So far, it is settling in nicely. We’ll see in a week.

Thanks Jon.