NGC 2403 LRGB

[Jannis]

Don't think I've seen this around here too often, but being a large and bright target i just couldn't resist...

Color data is 27x 300s iso800 captured with the Canon 550D, and the L data is 176x 60s gain30 with the Polemaster.

I tried to make a "wide-field" as well using the color data to extend the FOV, but didn't think it work too well?

 

[Demonperformer]

I like the colour of the first one. I think the galaxy is too small in thewide shot and so agree that the closer one is better.

[lux eterna]

5 hours ago, Jannis said:

Color data is 27x 300s iso800 captured with the Canon 550D, and the L data is 176x 60s gain30 with the Polemaster

Hei Jannis,

I like both pictures very much, and I think you did a very good job here. Good quality data and very nicely processed. Did you use the Polemaster (with 11 x 8 degrees FOV) to capture L data ? And how did you use the color data (from the 550D) to extend the FOV ? Could you please tell a little more how you managed to do this ? 

Ragnar

[lux eterna]

Sorry, I just read your ngc2903 post and understand you moved the Polemaster camera to the 200P-DS.

/Ragnar

[Jannis]

Thanks!

Ragner, correct, I've removed the lens from the Polemaster and attached a 1,25" NP.
While i also have the QHY5L-II, which have the same sensor as the Polemaster, the automatic FPN reduction in the 5L makes the dark frames not work properly. The Polemaster does not appear to have the same FPN reduction enabled, and so it tends to give a better result with up to 120s exposures. Unfortunately it's limited to 120s exposures though, while the 5L goes to 600s.

[Petergoodhew]

A gorgeous image of a very gorgeous galaxy.  I don't know why we don't see this one more often. I'm going to have a go at this too.

[Rodd]

I like the widefield.  Not sure how you did it, but it worked.  I like the first one as well--they are different and can't be compared.  Its like comparing a eagle to a porpoise.  Both amazing.

Rodd

[gorann]

Hei Jannis,

I agree with Rodd - both are very nice in their own rights and maybe at this moment I would vote for the wide field.

However, you have a rather strong brightness gradient in the wide field background. Being data deprived myself right now I could not stop myself from checking if Gradient Exterminator in PS could take care of it and it did a good job (medium-medium setting and galaxy masked). I also tried Noel's Actions in PS to increase star colour a bit. I could post it here but I assume you may want to have a go at it yourself.

[Jannis]

Thank you for the feedback guys!

I have to admit I did not put as much work into the wide-field image as i did with the galaxy itself, so I think I'll do a re-process of it and see if I can make it better.
I don't have Gradient Xterminator, but i wonder if Noel's new AstroFlat Pro will do a similar job? I haven't tested it yet, but i think i'll give it a try and see how it works. It's also a bit cheaper. 

 

[MikeODay]

Very nice image Jannis.  This one is way too far north for me so thanks for sharing ( and making me jealous  ).  Well done.

[gorann]

15 hours ago, Jannis said:

Thank you for the feedback guys!

I have to admit I did not put as much work into the wide-field image as i did with the galaxy itself, so I think I'll do a re-process of it and see if I can make it better.
I don't have Gradient Xterminator, but i wonder if Noel's new AstroFlat Pro will do a similar job? I haven't tested it yet, but i think i'll give it a try and see how it works. It's also a bit cheaper. 

 

Had not heard of AstroFlat Pro so it will be interesting to see how it handles your gradient. I found I do not need flats with my set ups since Gradient Exterminator takes good care of any vignetting in addition to gradients (brightness and colour) so I have become addicted to it but I am sure there are other programs doing it equally well.

Edit: Just saw that AstroFlat is only for Windows machines and I do my processing on a Mac......