Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

M110


Rodd

Recommended Posts

I reprocessed my M31 data and finally managed to achieve improvement in the several areas that I use to judge the image.  Previously, I would improve on one aspect but reduce the quality in another.  Needless to say, the core was the bugaboo.  But, since I have posted the data set a number of times, I felt it more appropriate to key in on another aspect of the image that I have never really considered....M110.  I was surprised to see dust lanes, a disc, and a core.  There are, of course deficiencies in the image.  To be expected since it represents a sizable crop.  I had to use a touch of noise control due to a bit more noise than is evident in the larger image--unfortunate.  I used no noise control in the M31 master.

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, ASI 1600

M32.jpg.f02d918e5b89e9d5e0b6e1761fdfa6f4.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

Yes, it is unusual to do a close-up of this gem. I prefer the less-cropped version - the contrast with the general colour and bright red  (presumably) Ha in M31 makes it for me.

I agree.  The first crop was not meant for aesthetics, more of a "lets see what details there are" type thing.    I like the second on e as well, though to be honest, the whole image of M31 is my favorite

Rodd    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rodd changed the title to M110

 

Here is the core of M31--one of the regions of the image that I really struggled to improve.  I have example of a tighter, more reduced core--but the boundary between the core and non core was too sharp.  This is my best attempt, and all of the structures visible in my more reduced example are present here--just a tough less distinct.  I would really like to follow the dust lanes to the core--but I don't think its possible with this data set.

 

 

 

l2-crop-US6.jpg.99e6d802a4b7f140f399f1e51598d618.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

But seriously, thisis interesting and will get me scurrying off to look at my M110s.

It should be very interesting with a more substantial focal length and aperture.  

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Here we go, this one from 2016 is noisy but appears to show the same dust lanes.

1572251149_M110Mine!.png.2e1688971efe3f774c145848098383d4.png

 

 

Indeed.  I did look at a few M110s just to make sure I wasn't looking at a processing artifact.  Nope--they are there as your image indicates as well.  This hobby is so cool!

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Indeed.  I did look at a few M110s just to make sure I wasn't looking at a processing artifact.  Nope--they are there as your image indicates as well.  This hobby is so cool!

Rodd

Something to look forward to doing properly - at last an excuse to poInt the 150pl at Andromeda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Something to look forward to doing properly - at last an excuse to poInt the 150pl at Andromeda!

Thats right.  There is a tendency to think a certain FOV is needed.  But if an image is good--any FOV is good.  Every FOV contains an amazing image.

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great images, Rodd. Two short remarks. When I imaged M110, I found a very weak bridge between it and M31. It is caused by the interactions between these galaxies. Will your data allow a more severe stretch to show that bridge?

How far do the dust lanes extend into M31's core? Maybe a treatment with HDR multiscale transform will answer this question. Although it may not be a pretty picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Great images, Rodd. Two short remarks. When I imaged M110, I found a very weak bridge between it and M31. It is caused by the interactions between these galaxies. Will your data allow a more severe stretch to show that bridge?

How far do the dust lanes extend into M31's core? Maybe a treatment with HDR multiscale transform will answer this question. Although it may not be a pretty picture.

Thanks Wim.  You've hit the balance nail on the head.  If I try to do as you suggest with the bridge...I may succeed, but at the cost of deteriorating some other aspect of the image.   One of the great lessons of AP, at least for me, is knowing what your data is capable of (while maintaining balance and realism).   A good example is the Tidal Tale of NGC 3628.  Most of the images that depict it strongly are, IMP, out of balance.  I don't think I have the data for it (unless I go out of balance).  With respect to M110--I have not seen too many images that reveal the dust lanes (or globules as in this case)--I am  sure they extend further than what I have depicted, but I think you are right that the outcome of HDR MT would likely lead to a mess.  Its might be worth a shot though.  I will look into it the next time I get the urge to make improvements.

Rodd

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wimvb said:

Great images, Rodd. Two short remarks. When I imaged M110, I found a very weak bridge between it and M31. It is caused by the interactions between these galaxies. Will your data allow a more severe stretch to show that bridge?

How far do the dust lanes extend into M31's core? Maybe a treatment with HDR multiscale transform will answer this question. Although it may not be a pretty picture.

Here you go Wim--Used HDR--it made the dust lanes more distinct, but didn't reveal any more closer to the core.  They aren't the typical spiral arm dust lanes--its an elliptical galaxy correct?  Also--you can see what may be part of the bridge in the upper right hand corner--it arcs from M110 to the right.  Its faint, but in the crop it is definitely visible.

 

M32mmt2.jpg.776a53617397cb38481ce7a36f75cdca.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rodd said:

Here you go Wim--Used HDR--it made the dust lanes more distinct, but didn't reveal any more closer to the core.  They aren't the typical spiral arm dust lanes--its an elliptical galaxy correct?  Also--you can see what may be part of the bridge in the upper right hand corner--it arcs from M110 to the right.  Its faint, but in the crop it is definitely visible.

 

M32mmt2.jpg.776a53617397cb38481ce7a36f75cdca.jpg

 

Definitely more distinct. As you wrote there is a balance between producing a fine image and revealing as much information/detail as possible. Professional astronomers will always choose the latter. For us amateurs the decision isn't always as easy, and we have to balance a "pretty picture" against revealing faint detail. Adam Block states it well when he argues that an astrophotograph has to convey a message. If the image shows some of the underlying astrophysics, that image becomes more powerfull. I think that you pulled that off here. You showed that M110 isn't just a diffuse blob next to M31, but that it has its own story. It has a structure and it is interacting with M31. Btw, also a warning. At times when I combined HDRMT with local enhancement LHE, the result could be intensity variations in a smooth areas, that couldn't be supported by the data. That is, LHE in particular, may introduce weak and gradual intensity variations that may not be really there, if you use it with a small kernel radius. I don't think this is the case in your image, but it's something you always have to be aware of. With PixInsight it is sometimes all too easy to shift that balance over the edge.

Btw, when I wrote about the dust lanes extending further into the core, I was referring to your other image, that of the core of the main Andromeda galaxy, M31, not the elliptical M110.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wimvb said:

Btw, when I wrote about the dust lanes extending further into the core, I was referring to your other image, that of the core of the main Andromeda galaxy, M31, not the elliptical M110.

Ah..I see.  M31 presents quite the challenge--at least my data, because there is a small section in the center that is overexposed.  I replaced the LRGB core with the RGB core to compensate and it really helped.  But there is still a little bit that is burned.  But you got me thinking, maybe if I played with the HDR MMT settings.  Here is an attempt with the scale set at 8 (I usually use 5) and the "to lightness" and "preserve hue" boxes checked.  Also, I used a range mask with the second slider moved to the left to produce a central hole in the mask, so the very center core of the galaxy would not be subjected to the process.  You can still see its a bit [removed word] as they say.  But I think there is a dust lane now visible in there that was not before--its curved and does not look like an artifact to me.  But, all in all, I am not sure I like the "balance"  The concentric type zones in the core are to be avaoided--at least that has been my goal.  But maybe if I fiddle I can get it--then I can transfer it to the big image and that would be something I have been trying to do for a long time....Thanks! 

l2-crop-US7MLT.jpg.dd5f35fd09bd9b17c7ca8be508c563ec.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wimvb said:

The very core of M31 is tricky. There are only a few images online that show detail. And I haven't seen any so far that show both the core and the outer regions. Here's one core image

http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/m/galaxies/456649.aspx

Maybe something to put on my list for the next season.

To me he has lost the balance.  The core of a galaxy is a raging inferno-truly a wonder to behold.  There has to be some hint of that in an image.  He has produced a flat field with no sense of a core really.  What I want to do is reveal the structure while preserving the sense of a tremendous outpouring of energy.  His is the transparent incandescent bulb that is off so you can see the structure--I want to turn the bulb on, but regulate its strength to the point where the structure is visible despite the fact that the bulb is bright.  I take it I should can the above attempt?

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rodd said:

To me he has lost the balance.  The core of a galaxy is a raging inferno-truly a wonder to behold.  There has to be some hint of that in an image.  He has produced a flat field with no sense of a core really.  What I want to do is reveal the structure while preserving the sense of a tremendous outpouring of energy.  His is the transparent incandescent bulb that is off so you can see the structure--I want to turn the bulb on, but regulate its strength to the point where the structure is visible despite the fact that the bulb is bright.

You described that image very well. My point in referring to it was to show that the dust goes very far into the core. But you are absolutely right in stating that his image is flat. The trick is, as you said, to keep a sense of depth and brightness, while also showing detail. I think that Robert Gendler does a better job in his image of the same object. But I believe that he used Hubble and Subaru data.

46 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I take it I should can the above attempt?

If you mean yours, definitely not. I think that in that image, you pushed your data as far as it can go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.