Bubble Nabula HaSHO

[Rodd]

ASI 1600: TOA 130 at native (1,000mm); Ha 136 300 sec; OIII 70 300 sec; SII 127 300 sec: 27.75 hours

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Tinkering

 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

CCs welcomed.....I can think of a bunch

Rodd

Going with a slight crop to finish for easier viewing without forcing full resolution

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

I know its not THAT bad.....Must be on that other forum

Rodd

[glowingturnip]

funny how some posts slip through the cracks isn't it - I've had a few, but then again, my stuff probably is rubbish !

looks very good to me, I like the colours - last one slightly dark for my taste.  I must have a go at it some time

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, glowingturnip said:

funny how some posts slip through the cracks isn't it - I've had a few, but then again, my stuff probably is rubbish !

looks very good to me, I like the colours - last one slightly dark for my taste.  I must have a go at it some time

Thanks--the darkness is due to my monitor situation--the image looks different on them all and I am never really sure what level of brightness is appropriate.  I think I agree with you though.  But the details in that image are better (except for the highlight).  I have several images and each one has attributes I like better--but none have them all.  You have made one thing quite clear.....Back to the drawing board!!! Many thanks

Rodd

[glowingturnip]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

You have made one thing quite clear.....Back to the drawing board!!!

Haha, no, not at all !.. Takes a second to try a new stretch or curves.

I have the same thing, I do all my heavy lifting processing on my laptop, but I know that however much I try, the colour and gamma on its screen never quite agree to any other monitors, so I do my final curves stuff on the desktop instead, if I can get my wife off it.  Always looks insipid on my laptop afterwards - strange.

[Rodd]

13 minutes ago, glowingturnip said:

Haha, no, not at all !.. Takes a second to try a new stretch or curves.

I have the same thing, I do all my heavy lifting processing on my laptop, but I know that however much I try, the colour and gamma on its screen never quite agree to any other monitors, so I do my final curves stuff on the desktop instead, if I can get my wife off it.  Always looks insipid on my laptop afterwards - strange.

That is it exactly.  As far as additional tweaks--there comes a time in the life of every image when it just needs to be retired.  I don't save every step as a FITs (or XISF in my case)--I end up with many JPEGs many of which have very subtle differences.  The bubble is no longer on my screen--I have moved on.  So to find the xisf nearest to the final one above in the processing train would still be many steps back.  It would be for all intents and purposes, starting over (well--after integration and background and color calibration and all that).   Besides, as many already suspect...its inevitable for me!!!!

Rodd

[glowingturnip]

top tip though - I save my process icons, especially if it's one I spent a long time tweaking, like a deconv or tgv, and they take up much less space than an interim image file.  Makes it easy to reproduce should I ever want to re-process something.  I usually keep the first and last xisf's too, bin all the others.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, glowingturnip said:

Haha, no, not at all !.. Takes a second to try a new stretch or curves.

I have the same thing, I do all my heavy lifting processing on my laptop, but I know that however much I try, the colour and gamma on its screen never quite agree to any other monitors, so I do my final curves stuff on the desktop instead, if I can get my wife off it.  Always looks insipid on my laptop afterwards - strange.

I had a go at a slight tweak--not on my processing computer though so limited tools.  I really do need to redo due to the highlight--it looked good in earlier versions but has degraded as I worked on the.  Can't really fix it at this point-- Meanwhile--this is a tad brighter in some areas.  When I get home I will try isolating the highlight and curving down the brightness--I think I tried that though--its overexposed at this point so a lost cause I think.--Oh yeah--a slight crop as that is how I decided to portray in Astrobin for whatever reason

Edited July 30, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, glowingturnip said:

Haha, no, not at all !.. Takes a second to try a new stretch or curves.

I have the same thing, I do all my heavy lifting processing on my laptop, but I know that however much I try, the colour and gamma on its screen never quite agree to any other monitors, so I do my final curves stuff on the desktop instead, if I can get my wife off it.  Always looks insipid on my laptop afterwards - strange.

I see what you mean--the dark regions are still dark--will take a reprocess.

Thanks for the tip

Rodd

[Rodd]

To be thorough--my final shout into the void.  A total reprocess.  The highlight now has substantial structure.  Its a bit brighter, sharper, cleaner...………………….………………………….but..

 

[glowingturnip]

definitely the best one, I'd be over the moon with that  🙂

[tooth_dr]

Superb Rodd. Some of the best bubble crispness and detail I’ve ever seen

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, glowingturnip said:

definitely the best one, I'd be over the moon with that  🙂

Thanks Stuart.  Its funny--but as most know i am never satisfied.  The funny thing is I will reprocess an image because some aspect of it is not to my liking.  I will finish and feel relieved that I am finished and think its an improvement.  A week later I compare it to the original and feel I was mistaken.   In this case I agree the bubble is the best--but the surrounding nebula is not.  I have made a few tweaks

 

2 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

Superb Rodd. Some of the best bubble crispness and detail I’ve ever seen

Thanks Doc.  I do like the bubble.  Unfortunately I seemed to have forgot about the environs around it.  Hopefully this is an improvement.  A bit more contrast in teh nebula.  Still not 100% satisfied, but the bubble itself I don't want to mess with any more.

[alan potts]

I must have missed your post myself. I like all of them but I feel you went a tad too dark with background sky on a couple, though this does give that in your face and jump out look. Masses of detail in every one of them, superb images that anyone would be pleased with. I would have been pleased to find Jupiter as I am trying to re-align things, miles out and could I hell as get the scope on it to sync just for a point. Then when I did clouds, it's a good job I don't have much hair because I would have pulled it out.

Alan

[MarsG76]

Fantastic image... on my screen the original, first posted, looks awesome.

 

[Rodd]

20 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I must have missed your post myself. I like all of them but I feel you went a tad too dark with background sky on a couple, though this does give that in your face and jump out look. Masses of detail in every one of them, superb images that anyone would be pleased with. I would have been pleased to find Jupiter as I am trying to re-align things, miles out and could I hell as get the scope on it to sync just for a point. Then when I did clouds, it's a good job I don't have much hair because I would have pulled it out.

Alan

Thanks Alan--I know the feeling, believe me.  What I hate is after spending time setting up, getting PA, achieving good focus, framing the target.....all in time for the first few minutes of astro darkness and what is looking to be good night.....the clouds roll in.  But I have learned to be patient.  many times I start breaking down in disgust and right when I am walking back to the house for the night.....the sky clears.  Now I wait at least an hour before packing it in

Rodd

[Rodd]

20 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Fantastic image... on my screen the original, first posted, looks awesome.

 

Thanks Mars--I like the original nebula and the last bubble (though the original bubble is not too bad).  I might try to combine them somehow.

Rodd

[MarsG76]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Mars--I like the original nebula and the last bubble (though the original bubble is not too bad).  I might try to combine them somehow.

Rodd

Selective masking in photoshop will allow you to do that.

 

[Rodd]

35 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Selective masking in photoshop will allow you to do that.

 

Sounds dangerous.  Just kidding.  I can do it in PI too.  I can add them in varying proportions, or I can completely replace portions of one with portions from another.   I'll have to see what looks best

Rodd

[Rodd]

OK--here it is.  The bubble from the above and the nebula from the original.  This particular version has not been downsampled.  It is slightly cropped though.  It might need to be down sampled a bit to stand up to full resolution viewing.

 

[MarsG76]

10 hours ago, Rodd said:

OK--here it is.  The bubble from the above and the nebula from the original.  This particular version has not been downsampled.  It is slightly cropped though.  It might need to be down sampled a bit to stand up to full resolution viewing.

 

I like this one... the "subject" stands out among the busy surrounding... I think you should crop out the left and bottom edges that are dark and almost look like a half vignette and have the nebulosity edge to edge in the whole frame... like in top right of the frame.

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

I like this one.

Thanks Mars.   I have a few different "versions" of this on my Astrobin page--I can't decide which I like better...I think one is cropped a bit more as you suggest.  The problem that arises is when you crop, if you don't downsample at the same time (or immediately after or before), then the image gets a bit too large for the forum post.  At 1:1 or less this image is very nice, but as you zoom in, it degrades--which is true for all images I know.  But the really great images can be "dived" into so to speak.  That is one reason I like the FSQ with the .6x reducer and this camera--its wide field, but pretty high resolution for such a FOV due to the small pixels, so one can enlarge past what can be done with this set up.  The resolution with this setup is actually far to high for my sky (0.78arcsec/pix).  That is C11 Edge territory with only 5" of aperture.  I was fortunate to get a few pretty decent nights for this image.  I think the FWHM of the image is 2-2.1, which is pretty good for me.  The SII subs were 1.5-1.9 arc/pix.  I don't see FWHM values below 2.0 very often.  I would put the .7x reducer on--that would make the resolution 1.12--better, but the target is small and I would lose size.  Cant Win!! 

Rodd

[MarsG76]

23 hours ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Mars.   I have a few different "versions" of this on my Astrobin page--I can't decide which I like better...I think one is cropped a bit more as you suggest.  The problem that arises is when you crop, if you don't downsample at the same time (or immediately after or before), then the image gets a bit too large for the forum post.  At 1:1 or less this image is very nice, but as you zoom in, it degrades--which is true for all images I know.  But the really great images can be "dived" into so to speak.  That is one reason I like the FSQ with the .6x reducer and this camera--its wide field, but pretty high resolution for such a FOV due to the small pixels, so one can enlarge past what can be done with this set up.  The resolution with this setup is actually far to high for my sky (0.78arcsec/pix).  That is C11 Edge territory with only 5" of aperture.  I was fortunate to get a few pretty decent nights for this image.  I think the FWHM of the image is 2-2.1, which is pretty good for me.  The SII subs were 1.5-1.9 arc/pix.  I don't see FWHM values below 2.0 very often.  I would put the .7x reducer on--that would make the resolution 1.12--better, but the target is small and I would lose size.  Cant Win!! 

Rodd

Hi Rodd, the tracking you need is to be around the resolution per pixel to have the best quality that the seeing will allow you to capture.... for example, I'm currently working on a close up of M17 and basically my pixel resolution is 1.16"/pixel at 2032mm focal length through the C8... and PHD2 is reporting average RMS of between 0.8" and 1.13" so I know that I shouldnt have any drift or motion blur to my subs... so needed tracking accuracy is a combo between the scope focal length and the sensor pixel size....

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by MarsG76