M63: Full Data Set

[gorann]

This was a tough one to process. Really easy to get odd colours. I think I finally have a result I dare to post. Nothing wrong with your data it was just me setting off on a strange journey in the world of PS, and I had to restart several times.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

I think I finally have a result I dare to post.

very nice--another clean image.  What strikes me most about this FOV, other than the real interesting galaxy in the center, is the number of galaxies sprinkled across the background....there are many.  

Rodd

[gorann]

Just now, Rodd said:

very nice--another clean image.  What strikes me most about this FOV, other than the real interesting galaxy in the center, is the number of galaxies sprinkled across the background....there are many.  

Rodd

Thaks Rodd,

yes, you captured a large number of bonus galaxies - so this is an image one can travel in. In the lum data there is a rather large one which was not covered by the RGB - but that is life...

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, gorann said:

In the lum data there is a rather large one which was not covered by the RGB - but that is life...

That is strange.  Speaking of strange--last night I was capturing some Ha, and at one point my subs started downloading in a reversed axis orientation--but I did not rotate the camera.  Ever have this happen?  I had to manually rotate and save each one before I could calibrate.  In PI each one saved is 5 clicks of the mouse--so 37 x 5.  I have to figure out why this happened.

Rodd

[gorann]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

That is strange.  Speaking of strange--last night I was capturing some Ha, and at one point my subs started downloading in a reversed axis orientation--but I did not rotate the camera.  Ever have this happen?  I had to manually rotate and save each one before I could calibrate.  In PI each one saved is 5 clicks of the mouse--so 37 x 5.  I have to figure out why this happened.

Rodd

Strange things do happen. This is what your image looked like at one point in PS. I had run the Equalize command on it to see what was in there (it is used diagnostically just for examination of data). It disclosed two rings around the galaxy and I though that something must be wrong with you scope, until I after some detective work found that PS had created these rings when I did a stretch. No idea why and I have not had it happend before (or after).

[Rodd]

33 minutes ago, gorann said:

No idea why and I have not had it happend before (or after).

Well I hope my subs do not come out reversed like that tonight--If they do, I do not know what to do.  Maybe its as you suggest and it won't happen again.  I'll clean up my computer and free up some space, and check that there is not a "reverse axis" option for subs.  What else is there?

Rodd

[gorann]

I assume you did not do a meridean flip? Or maybe your software received a command that made it think you did a meridean flip although you did not?

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gorann said:

I assume you did not do a meridean flip? Or maybe your software received a command that made it think you did a meridean flip although you did not?

No meridian flip--it happened before that--besides, the subs are not rotated as far as the axis go after a flip--the subs are flipped of course, but the x axis and the y axis remain as they are.  The orientation of the image remains wither at 0 or 90 degrees (my chosen orientations).  

[gorann]

Hope your camera and software learn to behave! I also hate when my software plays unexpected and unexplainable tricks on me.

Like you Rodd, I could not stop myself from fiddling with the image and here is what could be the final version with a few tweaks and a bit more saturation in the galaxy.

Thanks again for the data and if you have more to spare it will be most welcome!

[gorann]

Well, still maybe not the last one. It struck me that we may be chasing too much dust, and when it gets too close to the limit of the data it may be more pleasing to the eye to pull back a bit:

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

Well, still maybe not the last one. It struck me that we may be chasing too much dust, and when it gets too close to the limit of the data it may be more pleasing to the eye to pull back a bit:

 

No, never. But it does get noisy (and there's a football in there somewhere)

I follow the Star Trek mantra: to boldly go ... 

Normally, I wouldn't push data this far, because it just gets too noisy and calibration mishaps start to reveal themselves (ie the football).

Otoh, after making that combined rgb/inversion image, I just had to test this. And inspired by Göran, I even put a border around it.

As always: entirely messed up in PixInsight.

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, gorann said:

it may be more pleasing to the eye to pull back a bit

The increase in saturation looks good.  I know what you mean....Olly once said leave 10% (or was it 5?) of the image on the table (or in the computer).  I am getting to know what he meant.

Rodd

[Rodd]

59 minutes ago, wimvb said:

And inspired by Göran, I even put a border around it

At this point they all look good.  Its hard to say which version is better.  Look at one for a while and THAT one becomes the best.  Change to another and the one you thought was best looks horrible....but only by virtue of the change.  They are all good....and one day I will be able to do what you do. (I hope).

Rodd

[carastro]

Excellent image Rodd.  Beautiful result.

Carole 

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, carastro said:

Excellent image Rodd.  Beautiful result.

Carole 

Thanks Carole.

Rodd

[wimvb]

Btw, have you seen Jens Zippels image of the same galaxy? 11 hrs lum, 18 hrs total integration time

https://www.astrobin.com/340713/?nc=user

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, wimvb said:

Btw, have you seen Jens Zippels image of the same galaxy? 11 hrs lum, 18 hrs total integration time

https://www.astrobin.com/340713/?nc=user

I don't think so...its a beauty.

Rodd

[wimvb]

Jens has a 10" f/4 newton, and is able to collect a lot more light per minute than a refractor. Plus he uses a camera with larger pixels, which also helps. But your data already shows the same tidal structure that is visible in Jens' image. Quite impressive.

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, wimvb said:

Jens has a 10" f/4 newton, and is able to collect a lot more light per minute than a refractor. Plus he uses a camera with larger pixels, which also helps. But your data already shows the same tidal structure that is visible in Jens' image. Quite impressive.

Thanks Wim-- it is amazing waht a 5" scope can reveal. I have been impressed with the F4 newts (it helps when a master processor is working it!)  The 10" is a bit much for my mount, while the 8" with the central obstruction, is a tough sell over an unobstructed 5" refractor for imaging.  I am attracted to the fast focal ratio and longish focal length though.

Rodd

[gorann]

12 hours ago, wimvb said:

Jens has a 10" f/4 newton, and is able to collect a lot more light per minute than a refractor. Plus he uses a camera with larger pixels, which also helps. But your data already shows the same tidal structure that is visible in Jens' image. Quite impressive.

Jens image is fantastic but it does have those terribly ugly star spikes, which is nothing but sad artefacts (although liked by some as they were made famous by the Hubble)..... Refractors rules, or what do you say Rodd!

[Rodd]

43 minutes ago, gorann said:

Jens image is fantastic but it does have those terribly ugly star spikes, which is nothing but sad artefacts (although liked by some as they were made famous by the Hubble)..... Refractors rules, or what do you say Rodd!

I tend to agree (or the Edge system--refractor like stars with aperture!)--but only 4-5 stars in his image have spikes--the brightest.  Images from the Tak Epsilons tend to have many more.  They get annoying at that level.

Rodd

[gorann]

Rumours have it that Wim @wimvb is on the look out for a refractor...

[wimvb]

25 minutes ago, gorann said:

Rumours have it that Wim @wimvb is on the look out for a refractor...

 the jury is still out on that. But yes, the new sw 150ed pro looks promising. But so does a 10" f/4 TS ONTC. And that one is four times faster. The diffraction spikes makes star reduction and lifting faint structures more difficult. And even without the spider, reflectors have more diffraction than refractors. Btw, that's why the dragonfly project is based on fast refractors. But I'll probably change my mind a few times before I pull the trigger ...