Pacman Ha

[Rodd]

I finally was able to collect what I believe may be enough Ha data for Mr. Pacman.  This was a struggle that lasted 2 weeks.  I culled the best 20 30min subs from about 30 30 min subs, throwing out subs with high FWHM numbers, low signal due to clouds, and guiding glitches.  This post has sort of a bi modal purpose. 1)  A comparison between a drizzle integrated stack and a non drizzle integrate stack, 2) Wondering if collecting more subs would be worth it--this image has 10 hours, or if I should spend the time on OIII subs as my Hubble pallet images are always ultra green.  I realize that the eccentricity values are higher than what is considered ideal--probably because the target is close to the pole and the subs are longish.  At present I can't really fix that until I go through the trouble of getting spot on Polar alignment--which I always put off due to time constraints and the fact I use a portable setup (except for this instance where the scope has been set up for 2 straight weeks--but that is not predictable). I can live with the very slight elongation (for now). Other than calibration, cosmetic correction, alignment and stacking, these stacks have not been processed at all.  I understand that things like deconvolution is best suited for linear images, but when ever I try to use it on linear images it has disastrous effects.  I am obviously missing something there.   The images are JPEGs.

 

[Astroboy239]

Nice image. U need more ha i  feel. 

[Rodd]

Here is the image with a little processing (touch of deconvolution--figured it out, and a bit of sharpening and noise reduction)

[Rodd]

Here's the same image with a bit of morphological transformation to reduce stars.  20 more subs?

[ChrisLX200]

You should already have plenty enough data there with 10hrs and it looks a solid result. I don't think just piling another 20 subs on top is going to improve it that much (more always helps of course but diminishing returns). Overall it looks over stretched perhaps, especially if you're going to combine it with other channels because it will just wash out everything else and make the whole thing green. When you get around to adding the OIII channel then using PixInsight you will benefit by using LinearFit to balance this Ha channel with the background level of the OIII (which will be darker) so that will knock the overall brightness down anyway. I tend to balance channels a bit closer just by eye as that gives you more control, but either way you will need the OIII first. So I would leave this alone until you have that data to work with.

ChrisH

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, ChrisLX200 said:

You should already have plenty enough data there with 10hrs and it looks a solid result. I don't think just piling another 20 subs on top is going to improve it that much (more always helps of course but diminishing returns). Overall it looks over stretched perhaps, especially if you're going to combine it with other channels because it will just wash out everything else and make the whole thing green. When you get around to adding the OIII channel then using PixInsight you will benefit by using LinearFit to balance this Ha channel with the background level of the OIII (which will be darker) so that will knock the overall brightness down anyway. I tend to balance channels a bit closer just by eye as that gives you more control, but either way you will need the OIII first. So I would leave this alone until you have that data to work with.

ChrisH

Thanks Chris--I was hoping that would be the answer--I'm looking forward to getting the OIII.  As you may know, my Hubble Pallet images are always hyper green.  Maybe the Linear Fit will help that (never used it before).  I did stretch the image more than I normally would because I presented this as a stand alone mono image.  When I combine it with the OIII, SII (and maybe some RGB) I won't treat it as a stand alone image.