Rodd

Thanks!

Thank you!

There are many long focal length targets in this smordasborg of eatherial phantasms. I was surprised at the structure associated with the tip of the wing. FSQ 106 and .6x reducer with ASI 1600-about 17 hours Ha, OIII and SII

I know the black point in the dark structures is way to low. I botched it. I will have to reprocess and see if I can improve it

A god incarnate. Tremble ye should his gaze fall on thee. And get your cameras cooled down! TOA 150 from Deep Sky West in Chile. The good news is they found the problem with my mount and I am anxious to confirm.

Thanks Olly.

Until I get my mount back, I have nothing to do but get creative with old data. I have always wanted a highly resolved image of this section of the Rosette, but each time I have tried using the C11Edge, seeing has limited resolution to about what is available using the FSQ 106--and reduced .6x at that. This gets back to the principle of matching the resolution of the system to the conditions of the sky, which I am finding yields the best results. I am struggling with the notion of sticking with the C11Edge in hopes to take advantage of those crystaline nights of good seeing. I am beginning to think this a fools erand. FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600. About 13.5 hours Hubble Palette.

Thanks. It’s nice to find out you didn’t derail the train!

I spoke to soon. I have pulled out the regional dust a bit.

Thanks Doc......I think I will stop fiddling now before I ruin it!

How about this one--I used very fine scale sharpening and I don't think its over the line.....we'll see how I feel tomorrow

Hey--you were right!! I equalized the histogram, which was a tad heavy on blue. Thanks--I think it looks better. (I aslo tweaked up the saturation just a smidgeon)

Thats strange. The only difference between the two is one iteration of sharpening. But I have noticed that images look different in different places on my monitor. Eithgerway-thanks for looking. There really isn't much at all in it.

Here is the full image upsampled. I suppose it is bin (-1)

Thanks--that is good news. Its always tough to know when you've crossed the line

Here is the same image cropped and upsampled. I did exterminate these stars to good effect I think.

I fixed tghe stars. It turns out that I had con verted the PI file format of xisf to FITs for upload and several stars showed tghe artifacts. So I worked with the original xisf file and removed the stars in linear state, then stretched them tso they approximately matched this images original stars. Then I removed the stars in this image and replaced them with the new stars. Thank you!!! I am ashamed to have not noticed the artifacts. The image is improved becuase you took the time to look. No Extermination!

You have evolved into a higher form. It can only bring improvement. I am looking at removing the stars and replacing them with new, less exterminated stars. Sometimes these types of artifacts will be generated by PI’s star alignment tool. It’s a clamping threshold thing. Pretty frustrating. I think there is some evidence of this in my original Ha stack. I’ll try and eliminate them.

It’s very subtle. Maybe too subtle.

Thanks Olly.

Partly. The RGB data was collected at 318 mm and the stars were bloated. It makes for difficult processing. I figured who would use an electron microscope to peep. I will see if I can fix them.

They look at us and wonder the same thing?

More amazing than your Galilean calculations is the image of Jupiter. It’s huge and you used an 81 mm scope! I could never get the planet 1/5 as big with a C11 (or as impressive)

A tough project due to the intervening dust, which tends to push the image toward the red. I thought it was a bit much, so I toned it down a bit. The only difference between these two images is one iteration of sharpening. The second image is a tad bit sharper. Is it too much? TOA 130 and ASI 1600. HaLRGB about 32 hours

Wow--that MN190 is awesome. Truly an amazing image. I am not familiar with these and I need to look into them