M82 HaLRGB

[Rodd]

TOA 130 with ASI 1600.  It has taken a long time to collect this data due to the weather.  I was finally able to add 26 5min lum subs.  I wanted more but I'll take what I can get.  debating wheter more lum would be beneficial.  I would like to clean it up a bit.  I used a super luminance composed of the Lum subs and the RGB subs.

Red: 46 5min

Green: 53 5min

Blue: 51 5 min

Lum: 26 5 min

Ha: 99 5 min

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Rodd

[Davey-T]

That's a nice colourful M82 Rodd, just had a rare couple of hours decent skies here, don't know what time it is over there but it's 02.30 here and I'm off to bed.

Dave

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

That's a nice colourful M82 Rodd, just had a rare couple of hours decent skies here, don't know what time it is over there but it's 02.30 here and I'm off to bed.

Dave

Thanks Dave--its early here-about 9:30 but cloudy as usual.  The last month has been the worst its ever veen I think

Rodd

[PhotoGav]

Oooo, that’s a belter! The detail in the galaxy itself is crispy, I love it. Colours are gorgeous too.

I see what you mean about ‘cleaning it up’ as there is a speckliness to the background, which should fade away as you add more data. The question is, how much more data would be needed to see improvement? You already have a load of data in there and the diminishing return of time squared rule suggests you’d need oodles more... Out of interest, how much of the full field of view is this image? Have you cropped it much?

[carastro]

VERY nice Rodd

[alan potts]

Superb, so far I have only managed a bit of a smudge compared to that, only seen a better M82 from Hubble. You have some very nice equipment listed there to, as much as I could afford it I may well be filleted if I ordered it, I fact I hear the knife being sharpened for looking.

Alan

[Robny]

Whoa....that's awesome.

I like Mr Potts above have but a smudge so far, very cool!

[souls33k3r]

My my Rodd, that's one of the best M82's i've seen mate. Stupidly good.

[Han Solo]

Hi Rodd, I really like this image, If I had captured this image (which I couldn't) I wouldn't have been as brave as you are to push the saturation as far as you have. Congratulations on being brave enough to to this as the outcome is beautiful.

James

[ollypenrice]

Really feisty image with something to say. I like it very much.

Olly

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

Oooo, that’s a belter! The detail in the galaxy itself is crispy, I love it. Colours are gorgeous too.

I see what you mean about ‘cleaning it up’ as there is a speckliness to the background, which should fade away as you add more data. The question is, how much more data would be needed to see improvement? You already have a load of data in there and the diminishing return of time squared rule suggests you’d need oodles more... Out of interest, how much of the full field of view is this image? Have you cropped it much?

Thanks Gav.  Speckles are my pet peeve...can't seem to get rid of them--even with oddle and oodles of data.  This image is a BIG crop--Just the center of the FOV.  The sensor has 4,500 pixels wide--or something like that, and this one is 1,200 I think.   

Rodd 

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, carastro said:

VERY nice Rodd

Thanks Carol.

Rodd

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, alan potts said:

Superb, so far I have only managed a bit of a smudge compared to that, only seen a better M82 from Hubble. You have some very nice equipment listed there to, as much as I could afford it I may well be filleted if I ordered it, I fact I hear the knife being sharpened for looking.

Alan

Thanks Alan.  Yeah, I went overboard a bit.  I wish I had more clear sky time so I would not eschew switching OTAs as much as I do....it tends to eat up clear sky time

Rodd

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, Robny said:

Whoa....that's awesome.

I like Mr Potts above have but a smudge so far, very cool!

Thanks Robney.  

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, souls33k3r said:

My my Rodd, that's one of the best M82's i've seen mate. Stupidly good.

Thanks souls.  

Rodd

[Rodd]

53 minutes ago, Han Solo said:

Hi Rodd, I really like this image, If I had captured this image (which I couldn't) I wouldn't have been as brave as you are to push the saturation as far as you have. Congratulations on being brave enough to to this as the outcome is beautiful.

James

Thanks James.   And this is the toned down version!  

Rodd

[Rodd]

52 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Really feisty image with something to say. I like it very much.

Olly

Thanks Olly

Rodd

[souls33k3r]

7 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks souls.  

Rodd

You're an absolute inspiration mate and a true gentleman.

Whatever progress i made in image processing (i assure you, i've come far from where i was), your tips in the past have helped me loads. Really looking forward to learning more off you  

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

You're an absolute inspiration mate and a true gentleman.

Whatever progress i made in image processing (i assure you, i've come far from where i was), your tips in the past have helped me loads. Really looking forward to learning more off you  

Glad to hear you've had success and improvement....I know it doesn't come easy.  

Rodd

[PhotoGav]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

This image is a BIG crop--Just the center of the FOV.  The sensor has 4,500 pixels wide--or something like that, and this one is 1,200 I think. 

And there you have your answer... I think...

Cropping in to the image is going to exagerate the 'pixelation', which is what you are sort of suffering here. I use the term 'suffering', but I should be shot for doing so, this is a cracking image, let's not lose that fact in this discussion! I would be interested to see the uncropped original - my prediction is that it will look much less speckly at that size.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

9 minutes ago, PhotoGav said:

Cropping in to the image is going to exagerate the 'pixelation', which is what you are sort of suffering here. I use the term 'suffering', but I should be shot for doing so, this is a cracking image, let's not lose that fact in this discussion! I would be interested to see the uncropped original - my prediction is that it will look much less speckly at that size.

Yes, it also seems to apply to normal photos taken in good lighting conditions, almost nothing seems to look at its best at a 1:1 crop. if I scoot my chair back a little any unevenness in the background (which may be real, there are always stars and dust on the edge of detectability) disappears.

[Rodd]

31 minutes ago, PhotoGav said:

my prediction is that it will look much less speckly at that size.

The challenge with shooting galaxies with refractors is finding the best presentation size.  the original, while containing all the details that this one has, is very small.  The focal length was 1,000mm.  So enlarging to a point really benefits the image--perhaps I went a bit too far.  Its new waters for me--I have always presented my images at normal size with no alteration (up or down).   With this one I cropped early and processed, so there really isn't a pre-crop example of the same finish.  that was probably a mistake in hindsight.   I plan on getting  some more lum and will make sure I save a full image.

Rodd

[Rodd]

24 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

if I scoot my chair back a little any unevenness in the background (which may be real, there are always stars and dust on the edge of detectability) disappears.

Yes indeed--very similar to viewing distance for printed images.  A 6'x 8' mural may not look good if viewed from a few feet--but at 20 feet it may look really nice.  For this image--the initial screen size is bigger than the size if you click on it once (prior to going to full resolution).  I think that second size is the best one for this image.  The size one sees when opening the forum page without clicking the image is a bit to large.

Rodd 

[Rush]

Rodd its  a  spledid colourful galaxy. Nicely done.  Very  interesting super lum Approach.

Delicate question ? perhaps reduce the star size bvor cropping. Kind of blocky star background for a razor sharp Galaxy or not ?

Super Image,

CS

Rush

 

 

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, Rush said:

Kind of blocky star background for a razor sharp Galaxy or not ?

Super Image,

Thanks Rush.  The stars don't look blocky to me...enlarged for sure, though.  I have not yet mastered the art of star size reduction (best employed in linear state).  I do use a small amount of star dimming (morphological transformation in PI) at times, though I find too much does not appeal to me.  The stars in this image are in need of much--color for one, and reduction as well.  To be honest, RGB stars are not my strong suit--I don't often have "splendid" star fields with color in the cores.  In my defense this is a drastic crop, so the stars are bound to look sub-optimum (in my hands)

Rodd