Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

An Eskimo and a Snowball

blackparticle

By blackparticle
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

blackparticle

blackparticle

Posted
Posted

I only found out after I'd done these that they would have worked much better in OIII/Ha/Hb rather than OSC and would have resulted in a much tighter focus. I'd probably not chosen the stillest night for this experiment either.

SXVF-M8C + SW Mak 150 (1800mm @ f/12) - NEQ6 - Lodestar/Finder-Guider

A combination of a subs ranging from 30s to 10 minutes. Approx 4 hrs on each.

Getting 10 minute subs had me cheering. I think the extra weight compared to an Eqx66 has made the mount much more solid and has actually improved the tracking. I might have to start using the Mak150 as ballast when imaging with the 66. ;)

Stacking these was a job in itself. DSS was having none of it.. not enough stars. So I had to manually align each frame in Nebulosity2, batch geometry crop the part I wanted and then back into DSS for an x3 drizzle.

Tweaked in PS3 and treated more like a planet than DSO with a heavy sharpening filter.

I'd love to see some really big scope attempts at these. These two are perfectly situated either side of Jupiter at the moment and those IS cams must be able to do long exposures. :headbang::)

Alan

NGC 2392 - The Eskimo Nebula

d391f6d1b5500c0ff81efd377cc21ac8-d4exmlf.jpg

NGC 7662 - The Blue Snowball

f2458547d03e8cbe3840a5428a3e0fa2-d4exl0h.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luke

Luke

Posted
Posted

Well done, Alan, I was thinking about having a crack at these the other night at 1800mm but was scared off by the smallness of them.

I'd love to be able to get something vaguely as detailed as you've pulled out! Wow! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackparticle

blackparticle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You can see the difference the x3 drizzle makes between the close up (stacked in DSS) and the widefield which was stacked in Nebulosity without drizzle. A widefield drizzle in Nebulosity would take all day to process I imagine. :)

Drizzle works well I find. I'd use it more often if my computers didn't throw up a memory error due to the rather large file sizes it can generate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
Posted

Really amazing images. Great work.

The SXVF-M8C has really small pixels, so I guess that results in higher resolution. I guess this finally expels the myth that CCDs with small pixels aren't sensitive enough for serious DSO imaging? I was thinking of getting one of these for the higher resolution they offer, particularly with longer FL scopes, but was put off by the suggestion that the small pixels mean that the CCD isn't sensitive enough. Grrrrr!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackparticle

blackparticle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The M8C has the smallest pixels of all cams that I've come across. It's a shame they never made a mono version. I'm also quite surprised that they aren't more popular. Is there even anyone else on here still using one?

Funny thing is.. everyone's going to want a small pixel cam now Atik have announced a competing model in the 450L. Should I mention that the SXVF-M8C is currently £600 cheaper where available? ;)

They are difficult to work with. The signal/noise ratio compared with a sensor that has x5 the well capacity is apparent when going after the wispy stuff. You have to put the extra time in to make the detail increase worthwhile. For these tiny bright objects though they really push what's possible with a smaller scope.

Going after these two was a test to see how far it could go. I'm going to use this setup (possibly with a Meade f0.63x reducer/flattener for a more manageable 1200mm @ f/8) to go galaxy hunting. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted
Really amazing images. Great work.

The SXVF-M8C has really small pixels, so I guess that results in higher resolution. I guess this finally expels the myth that CCDs with small pixels aren't sensitive enough for serious DSO imaging? I was thinking of getting one of these for the higher resolution they offer, particularly with longer FL scopes, but was put off by the suggestion that the small pixels mean that the CCD isn't sensitive enough. Grrrrr!

I wouldn't be too 'GRRR-ed' about it! It depends on the target. These are tiny and bright so they do play to the small pixel camera. But what about objects that are tiny and faint?

These images are certainly a case of the right camera (and the right man!) for the job.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
Posted
....These images are certainly a case of the right camera (and the right man!) for the job.....

Olly

Yes, of course, you're quite right. And, of course, imaging such small objects at a focal length of 1800mm also requires very precise guiding. Well done again, Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
shinok

shinok

Posted
Posted

I only found out after I'd done these that they would have worked much better in OIII/Ha/Hb rather than OSC and would have resulted in a much tighter focus. I'd probably not chosen the stillest night for this experiment either.

SXVF-M8C + SW Mak 150 (1800mm @ f/12) - NEQ6 - Lodestar/Finder-Guider

A combination of a subs ranging from 30s to 10 minutes. Approx 4 hrs on each.

Getting 10 minute subs had me cheering. I think the extra weight compared to an Eqx66 has made the mount much more solid and has actually improved the tracking. I might have to start using the Mak150 as ballast when imaging with the 66. ;)

Stacking these was a job in itself. DSS was having none of it.. not enough stars. So I had to manually align each frame in Nebulosity2, batch geometry crop the part I wanted and then back into DSS for an x3 drizzle.

Tweaked in PS3 and treated more like a planet than DSO with a heavy sharpening filter.

I'd love to see some really big scope attempts at these. These two are perfectly situated either side of Jupiter at the moment and those IS cams must be able to do long exposures. ;):D

Alan

NGC 2392 - The Eskimo Nebula

d391f6d1b5500c0ff81efd377cc21ac8-d4exmlf.jpg

NGC 7662 - The Blue Snowball

f2458547d03e8cbe3840a5428a3e0fa2-d4exl0h.jpg

i cant believe how much detail you've captured, truly Awesome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.