Leo Triplets LRGB

[Rodd]

I did not know what to expect with this image as I only have 4 blue subs.  I figured I'd see what happens.  TOA 130 with .7x reducer, STT 8300 with Astrodon series e filters

Red  18 10 min

Green 18 10 min

Blue 4 10 min

Lum--Super Luminance composed of all 61 RGB subs

All in all I am a bit surprised and pleased--though the tail is basically absent--faintly visible, but its a stretch (no pun intended).  I intend to collect 14 more blue subs and pile on the lum-- to see if I can bring the tail out and the noise down so the black point can be raised a bit.  I would do 20 min lum subs, but the Moon is growing (tonights basically the last chance on this target for a while), and the seeing and transparency have been poor as of late.  The image is passable at normal viewing, but degrades a bit under full resolution mode.  Hopefully additional data will help.

[andy fearn]

wow.very nice.

[MikeODay]

Lovely image Rodd.  The cloud detail in the galaxies is wonderful.

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, andy fearn said:

wow.very nice.

Thanks Andy.  Its a start!

Rodd

[Rodd]

Just now, MikeODay said:

Lovely image Rodd.  The cloud detail in the galaxies is wonderful.

Thanks Mike.   I am thinking of adding some Ha.  I rmeember shooting a test sub in Ha of this target and there was appreciable signal.  

Rodd

[Petergoodhew]

That's excellent Rodd.  Nice crisp detail, and surprisingly good colour given the amount of data.  That tail looks clearly visible on my screen!

[gorann]

Yes, I agree, excellent. But why do you not merge that we the equally excellent 29 hours of data you showed us last year?

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, Petergoodhew said:

That's excellent Rodd.  Nice crisp detail, and surprisingly good colour given the amount of data.  That tail looks clearly visible on my screen!

Thanks Peter,

Screens do make a difference (I hadn't realized how mucj)

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gorann said:

Yes, I agree, excellent. But why do you not merge that we the equally excellent 29 hours of data you showed us last year?

Thanks Gorann---well, that was taken at a much lower focal length (430 vs 700)--and I wanted to get a closer in view.  Also--that image was plagued with nasty gradients, questionable flats for some channels, and I wanted to "try again".  I would have shot this at 1,000mm, but the framing was just not pleasant (galaxies all pushed close to the edges.  

Rodd

[ollypenrice]

First, this is a fine image.  I'm surprised that the blue is the 'short' channel because the image strikes me as being 'colour cold' - so high in blue, low in red, more or less. The overall effect looks a bit chilly to me!

If you have old but low res data (for the tail) I'd think that it could be judiciously incorporated. I hate to throw away photons!

To my mind this is a truly glorious target and you've already done it proud. I'd keep going. I've never done it in Ha but I dare say the Hamburger will have something to say for itself. It also has some tantalizing blue extensions in the spiral arms. Go, Rodd, go!!!

lly

[Rodd]

58 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

First, this is a fine image.  I'm surprised that the blue is the 'short' channel because the image strikes me as being 'colour cold' - so high in blue, low in red, more or less. The overall effect looks a bit chilly to me!

If you have old but low res data (for the tail) I'd think that it could be judiciously incorporated. I hate to throw away photons!

To my mind this is a truly glorious target and you've already done it proud. I'd keep going. I've never done it in Ha but I dare say the Hamburger will have something to say for itself. It also has some tantalizing blue extensions in the spiral arms. Go, Rodd, go!!!q

lly

Thanks Olly--you know its strange but this is not the first time a "short" channel dominated the color--it tends to happen for me for some reason.  As for using old data,  I have not figured that out in PI yet.

Rodd 

[gorann]

Rodd, when I look at your previous data, which you allowed me to mess with (process) last year, see https://www.astrobin.com/287162/D/  I think especially the tail would benefit from some merging with your current data. I expect that the gradients in your old data is mainly outside the FOV of your current data.

How to do it? I would think that you would crop the old image, then scale it to the same pixel scale as the current image (in PS I would measure the length between two distant stars and compare it between the images to get a factor to use to multiply the pixel/inch in the low resolution data. Then I expect that star alignment in PI would be able to align them. Then it would be easy to use layers in PS to merge the data selectively but I am not sure how it is done in PI. Maybe Wim @wimvb can help?

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, gorann said:

Rodd, when I look at your previous data, which you allowed me to mess with (process) last year, see https://www.astrobin.com/287162/D/  I think especially the tail would benefit from some merging with your current data. I expect that the gradients in your old data is mainly outside the FOV of your current data.

How to do it? I would think that you would crop the old image, then scale it to the same pixel scale as the current image (in PS I would measure the length between two distant stars and compare it between the images to get a factor to use to multiply the pixel/inch in the low resolution data. Then I expect that star alignment in PI would be able to align them. Then it would be easy to use layers in PS to merge the data selectively but I am not sure how it is done in PI. Maybe Wim @wimvb can help?

I forgot how good you were able to make that data look!  Once I am able to get PI to align the data (if), then I am all set and will just process in my normal manner.  Looks like I have a project for the days of the Moon--which, unfortunately are upon me.  I need to reprocess that old data though--combining my previous image with the new data does not seem nearly as promising as using your version of my old data!

A little history: I have been delaying switching to the ASI1600mmcool, as I am sure it will eat up at least 1 night (and maybe more) of imaging time getting everything in working order (switching the filters from the STT-8300 to the new filter wheel...making sure the AOG is aligned, getting the optical train correct, installing the posidrive focus motor, etc.).  I guess I have no reason to delay any longer as I don't want to start another image (Ha).  This became necessary due to my filter wheels propensity to jam.  Its a pain, requiring me to restart the camera, and often reboot the computer.  Workable.  But sometimes it won't break free until I remove the camera from the scope and manually rotate it...then it is a real pain-I have to reshoot all my flats as I can never find the exact camera angle. The worst thing about it is I have sent the camera to SBIG  times and they insist the thing works fine.  We are all stumped.  I plan to send it to OPT (my dealer) for testing.  But I wanted to finish the Horsehead, and the triplets presented themselves as the only decent target for my current set up that I could shoot after Orion hit the tree line (about 12:00).  Not one to waste clear skies, I proceeded to re-image the triplets.  

 

So--I suppose it is time (new learning curves terrify me).  I suppose it is a good time since the Moon is out and lost imaging time will not be so painful.  An added bonus is I will be able to shoot the Moon and planets without having to change cameras! 

Rodd

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, gorann said:

Rodd, when I look at your previous data, which you allowed me to mess with (process) last year, see https://www.astrobin.com/287162/D/  I think especially the tail would benefit from some merging with your current data. I expect that the gradients in your old data is mainly outside the FOV of your current data.

How to do it? I would think that you would crop the old image, then scale it to the same pixel scale as the current image (in PS I would measure the length between two distant stars and compare it between the images to get a factor to use to multiply the pixel/inch in the low resolution data. Then I expect that star alignment in PI would be able to align them. Then it would be easy to use layers in PS to merge the data selectively but I am not sure how it is done in PI. Maybe Wim @wimvb can help?

Wow!  PI was able to align the old data with the new--just by aligning in the normal fashion!  It rotated the Televue subs, cropped them and they look like the current subs!    The only problem is that the tail is in large part out of the FOV.  

Rodd

[gorann]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Wow!  PI was able to align the old data with the new--just by aligning in the normal fashion!  It rotated the Televue subs, cropped them and they look like the current subs!    The only problem is that the tail is in large part out of the FOV.  

Rodd

Maybe use a bit of the "old" sky around the tail sou you not have to dock it? If you want to use my version of your old data I can maybe send it to you as a tiff in a message here on SGL.

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gorann said:

Maybe use a bit of the "old" sky around the tail sou you not have to dock it? If you want to use my version of your old data I can maybe send it to you as a tiff in a message here on SGL.

In PI Registering the old data to the new is easy--the data is rotated and cropped perfectly.  However, registering the new data to the old results in a large black boarder around the new FOV.  There is no way to add the new FOV to the old FOV in PI without resorting to a home made script or some Pixel Math formula that I don't know.  In PI, one combines the data or not through the alignment and integration process--all or nothing.  Once I have processed images, I could decide to add a percentage of the images together--but only percentages of the whole images--such as 30% of image A and 70% of image B--but still the whole image.  There is no way that I know of that I can add a portion (as in a "region") of an image to another image (such as the tail by itself).

Rodd

[gorann]

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

In PI Registering the old data to the new is easy--the data is rotated and cropped perfectly.  However, registering the new data to the old results in a large black boarder around the new FOV.  There is no way to add the new FOV to the old FOV in PI without resorting to a home made script or some Pixel Math formula that I don't know.  In PI, one combines the data or not through the alignment and integration process--all or nothing.  Once I have processed images, I could decide to add a percentage of the images together--but only percentages of the whole images--such as 30% of image A and 70% of image B--but still the whole image.  There is no way that I know of that I can add a portion (as in a "region") of an image to another image (such as the tail by itself).

Rodd

Using selected parts of an image would be easily done in layers in PS, but I assume you are still sticking solely to PI. In PS you can also scale and rotate images manually to align them and I think there is even some automated function in PS for this that I never used. Hopefully someone can step in and provide PI help. Wim @wimvb, are you out there?

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, gorann said:

Using selected parts of an image would be easily done in layers in PS, but I assume you are still sticking solely to PI. In PS you can also scale and rotate images manually to align them and I think there is even some automated function in PS for this that I never used. Hopefully someone can step in and provide PI help. Wim @wimvb, are you out there?

If I didn't have to get a prescrption I would do PS AND PI.  I had GIMP and could not make any sense out of it.  Not sure I could handle the learning curve though--I am tired of learning curves!  besides, the PI learning curve is not flat yet!

Rodd

[Rodd]

15 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

First, this is a fine image.  I'm surprised that the blue is the 'short' channel because the image strikes me as being 'colour cold' - so high in blue, low in red, more or less. The overall effect looks a bit chilly to me!

If you have old but low res data (for the tail) I'd think that it could be judiciously incorporated. I hate to throw away photons!

To my mind this is a truly glorious target and you've already done it proud. I'd keep going. I've never done it in Ha but I dare say the Hamburger will have something to say for itself. It also has some tantalizing blue extensions in the spiral arms. Go, Rodd, go!!!

lly

 

9 hours ago, gorann said:

Rodd, when I look at your previous data, which you allowed me to mess with (process) last year, see https://www.astrobin.com/287162/D/  I think especially the tail would benefit from some merging with your current data. I expect that the gradients in your old data is mainly outside the FOV of your current data.

How to do it? I would think that you would crop the old image, then scale it to the same pixel scale as the current image (in PS I would measure the length between two distant stars and compare it between the images to get a factor to use to multiply the pixel/inch in the low resolution data. Then I expect that star alignment in PI would be able to align them. Then it would be easy to use layers in PS to merge the data selectively but I am not sure how it is done in PI. Maybe Wim @wimvb can help?

Well--Here it is--I used all data from the previous image and the new image--226 10 min subs for a super luminance, 56 10 min red, 54 10 min green and 40 10 min blue.  The tail is no more visible.  I can't say I think this image is much better--though there is more of the blue extensions in the spiral arms Olly referred to, and the detail in the Hamburger is obviously sharper.  M64 is more detailed as well.  Not sure the difference is quite as much as I had hoped for--especially the tail, and there is some clamping issues with some stars (I can live with iut but it is definitely noticeable).  I had to keep the black point low because of the darned mottling effect I now remember having with allot of my Televue LRGB data (I don't seem to have as much trouble shooting LRGB with the TOA--maybe because its F5.4 instead of F4.3--not sure).

 

[ollypenrice]

A success! I love M66!

Olly

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

A success! I love M66!

Olly

Thanks Olly--Tonight is Ha.  I don't think additional broad band data will accomplish much.  The Moons up anyway.

Rodd

[gorann]

I think that image is a statement! So much going on in that sky. However, it is Friday night and I am into the second bottle of red with the wife so I have a closer look at it tomorrow...

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, gorann said:

I think that image is a statement! So much going on in that sky. However, it is Friday night and I am into the second bottle of red with the wife so I have a closer look at it tomorrow...

Thanks Gorann.  Just to point out--I am redoing the image using only the TOA subs for the super luminence (they are higher resolution).  And I am concentrating on the background.  I am not using Mure Denoise this time and DBE seems to work better.  The devil is in the details and I am pulling out the metaphorical magnifying glass to see if I can improve it...meaning make it more realistic looking as apposed to a PI photograph.  I plan to collect Ha tonight and throw that in the mix tomorrow.  If it turns everything pink I will toss it.  But I am hopeful that the Hamburger--and maybe the other galaxies as well will show some small star forming regions.

Rodd

[wimvb]

12 hours ago, gorann said:

Maybe Wim @wimvb can help

 

6 hours ago, gorann said:

Wim @wimvb, are you out there?

Just offline for a while. I haven't tried to use it this way, but the gradientmergemosaic script should be able to handle this. There's also a script called replacewithpreview, that lets you (you guessed it) replace part of an image with another.

I would need to do some testing before I can give more details.

[kirkster501]

I love it.