Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

Sh2 129 & Ou4 : Flying Bat & Squid Nebula.


manoss27
 Share

Recommended Posts

Truly amazing!

This must be one of the best, if not the best, image anyone has taken of this object! It is just standing out so clearly. Colours are perfect.  I notice that the last data was collected more than a month ago - I assume this means that you also had quite a lot of processing to do before you could show us this beauty.

Congratulations!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i imaged this just over a year ago, and man it was faint.  I surprised how close in you are if this is taken with a FSQ106, and reducer thought the field would of been much wider.

tried to do a plate solve and it would not work, to try get exact position.  can you post a single raw file to show how faint it is, 

the squid looks like it been pasted on top of the nebula, im amazed how bright it is.

paul j

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn that's good, I have never seen a Squid so defined before,

It looks like Hubble has had a go at it, truly remarkable shot

of this very faint elusive target, Its the best by far I have seen any where.

What one of your cameras was this taken with on your Tak.

well done

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i imaged this just over a year ago, and man it was faint.  I surprised how close in you are if this is taken with a FSQ106, and reducer thought the field would of been much wider.

tried to do a plate solve and it would not work, to try get exact position.  can you post a single raw file to show how faint it is, 

the squid looks like it been pasted on top of the nebula, im amazed how bright it is.

paul j

Υes, of course just send me an email with p.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn that's good, I have never seen a Squid so defined before,

It looks like Hubble has had a go at it, truly remarkable shot

of this very faint elusive target, Its the best by far I have seen any where.

What one of your cameras was this taken with on your Tak.

well done

Paul

Both 383 and 460 but Αtik 460 its more sensitive and collect a lot more information....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both 383 and 460 but Αtik 460 its more sensitive and collect a lot more information....

Glad to hear that I made the right choice when I went for the 460 and not the 383 when I recently bought my first mono CCD. It was a tough decision. I assume that for the squid, sensitivity wins over field of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i imaged this just over a year ago, and man it was faint.  I surprised how close in you are if this is taken with a FSQ106, and reducer thought the field would of been much wider.

tried to do a plate solve and it would not work, to try get exact position.  can you post a single raw file to show how faint it is, 

the squid looks like it been pasted on top of the nebula, im amazed how bright it is.

paul j

It appears to be plate solved on the Astrobin: http://www.astrobin.com/235869/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear that I made the right choice when I went for the 460 and not the 383 when I recently bought my first mono CCD. It was a tough decision. I assume that for the squid, sensitivity wins over field of view.

If you use the reducer the field still the same so you have fast telescope 3.6f and field 2.17 arc/sec  :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I am sure the data is of very high quality, I have some serious doubts regarding this processing. I feel the processing has gone way too far.

Way too much noise reduction and a "water painting" overall look. This is a PI image taken too far, perhaps you could try a less aggressive version?

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but this is the way I see it. Just giving my opinion.

Regards,

Pieter

Edited by pietervdv
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to react to this image. I have to be impressed by the strength of the data but, like Pieter, I find it impossible to see it as a natural photograph of the target. The level of noise reduction is so extreme that it has become a piece of graphic design, far removed from nature. 

I would love to see something with far less processing and far more of the original data.

Pixinsight does seem to tempt imagers into going too far. I'm very impressed, but this is not for me. You are clearly a very expert imager so I hope you won't mind me sayng how I really feel about it.

Olly

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with Olly here, using PI's TGV de-noise (for example) can quickly obliterate detail together with the noise! You obviously have some excellent image data on this object, having tried myself not too long ago using 30min subs I only managed to record a weak signal - nothing like as strong as you show (which must be from a very dark site?). I'd rather see a little noise plus the detail in the result than a very smooth but featureless image. Well worth re-visiting your data then and playing with the options in order to protect your hard-won information. If it were mine I;d be playing with for weeks trying to tease out as much info as possible ;-)

ChrisH

Edited by ChrisLX200
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would I find this using synscan?

RA 21 12 11

Dec +60 3 22

In anything but an OIII filter it is effectively impossible to detect in my experience but the Sony chip does seem to be particularly good on this target.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Olly and Chris thank you for advices. the proccesing method I used is tone mapping the ou4 it is very difficult to enhanced without that. I used Pi only for dbe and rgb combine for other steps only photoshop . The noise reduction is on chrominance And lum only by 30 percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Olly and Chris thank you for advices. the proccesing method I used is tone mapping the ou4 it is very difficult to enhanced without that. I used Pi only for dbe and rgb combine for other steps only photoshop . The noise reduction is on chrominance And lum only by 30 percent.

I want to say again that I think this is a fantastic capture. I just think you could let a little more noise and a little more detail to come through in the processing.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 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.