Thor's Helmet widefield reprocess

[Rodd]

I reprocessed this image and was very pleased with the improvements.  I retained the original background, as I think that was well potrayed--but the hlmet itself was over processed.  This helmet took 15 minutes to compete, and I think its cleaner, and the dust regions are sharper.

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer

Ha  130 300 sce

OIII  55 300 sec

Fist image is reprocess, second image is original

Original

 

[don4l]

They are both excellent.  I do have a slight preference for the new version.

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, don4l said:

They are both excellent.  I do have a slight preference for the new version.

Thanks.  I think the difference comes out when the image is enlarged.  It’s a pretty small area really, as the background, which is most of the image is the same

Rodd

[alan potts]

Wow Rodd, superb images, could you give me an NGC number for this I would like to try at some point, really lives up to its name.

Alan

[fwm891]

Great image Rodd.  It's Sh2-298 or NGC 2359 or IC 468....

[Rodd]

8 hours ago, alan potts said:

Wow Rodd, superb images, could you give me an NGC number for this I would like to try at some point, really lives up to its name.

Alan

Sorry Alan--I usually name the post by an official designation, except for a few of the more iconic targets.  Francis knows all 3--I just know NFC 2359.

Rodd

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, fwm891 said:

Great image Rodd.  It's Sh2-298 or NGC 2359 or IC 468....

Thanks Francis--I didn't realize it had sh2 and IC numbers....probably should have though.  Having multiple designations comes in handy for my version of Cartes Du Ceil only has NGCs not ICs or Sh2s. 

Rodd

[carastro]

Great image Rodd, I have found it a tricky little blighter as all my attempts so far are noisy despite hours of data.   Your's doesn't looks too bad at all from that point of view.  What Bortle scale was this done at?

Of course yours is a CMOS camera so can't compare exposure length and how many to a CCD which I use.

Carole 

 

 

 

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, carastro said:

Great image Rodd, I have found it a tricky little blighter as all my attempts so far are noisy despite hours of data.   Your's doesn't looks too bad at all from that point of view.  What Bortle scale was this done at?

Of course yours is a CMOS camera so can't compare exposure length and how many to a CCD which I use.

Carole 

 

 

 

Thanks Carole.  The Bortle scale is reported at 5 but I think its closer to 6, maybe even worse where this target is which is low in the light dome of a nearby city.  I can only image in this area on the best of nights.   Its narrowband, too,  which is much more forgiving of my sky conditions.  I shot this with a couple times with CCD a over the years  with mediocre results.  the first time I had just started and didn't know how to image very well.  The second attempt was never completed--I only got about half the Ha I wanted and I could never finish due to the conditions.  My window for this one is pretty short.

Rodd

 

[carastro]

Thanks, so you have found it a bit of the tricky one too.  I took mine in Bortle 4 as well as I can't even see it from my home location at Bortle 8 as it's behind the trees. 

Carole 

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, carastro said:

Thanks, so you have found it a bit of the tricky one too.  I took mine in Bortle 4 as well as I can't even see it from my home location at Bortle 8 as it's behind the trees. 

Carole 

It is  tricky...but the difficulty is somewhat compensated by the fact that you only really need 2 filters--I have only ever use Ha and OIII anyway--people do use the SII and the RGB but like the veil a pretty nice image can be made using only 2.

Rodd

[fwm891]

Keep coming back to look at this image. Really like both but would probably settle for a midway version...

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, fwm891 said:

Keep coming back to look at this image. Really like both but would probably settle for a midway version...

Thanks Francis.  I’ll give that a try

Rodd

[Rodd]

On 11/09/2019 at 01:10, fwm891 said:

Keep coming back to look at this image. Really like both but would probably settle for a midway version...

Sort of what you had in mind.  I tidied up the helmet a bit in a new version and used the L from that version as an inserted L in a combination of #1 and #2.  I think this about as good as I can make this with the slightly miscolimated optics.  The scope has since been fixed and I will unbox it soon to see if that was in fact the issue.  I hope it was.
Rodd

[Guest]

Hello Rodd,

As I saw your images , taken with the combination  FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, and since I have had the FSQ106 and I did decide to buy the FSQ .6x reducer, now I am trying to find the perfect spacing with the combination FSQ 106 with .6x reducer + ASI1600 COOL+FW.

Hope " someday " I will also be able to produce images like you do with the combination FSQ 106 with .6x reducer + ASI1600 MM-COOL + ZWO FW.

The picture or all your pictures are amazing..

Cheers

Martin

Edited September 12, 2019 by Guest

[fwm891]

Now that Rodd is a superb image - magic stuff.

I'll give it a go myself in a few months time...

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, artem said:

Hello Rodd,

As I saw your images , taken with the combination  FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, and since I have had the FSQ106 and I did decide buy the FSQ .6x reducer, now I am buy to find the perfect spacing with the combination FSQ 106 with .6x reducer + ASI1600 COOL+FW.

Hope " someday " I will also be able to produce images like you do with the combination FSQ 106 with .6x reducer + ASI1600 MM-COOL + ZWO FW.

The pictures or pictures are amazing..

Cheers

Martin

Thanks Martin.   The spacing for me was a bit tricky because I had a collimation issue that I thought was a spacing issue--so I tried a range of spacings +/- 5mm either way.  None resulted in the correct star profiles around the perimeters because of the (I hope) collimation issue.  It is pretty slight, only noticeable upon full resolution, but it gnawed at me because "a brand new, very expensive scope should not have this issue!"   I sent it back, the fixed it (reportedly) and well see when I use it again (need to finish a couple of images first).  Anyway--the metal back distance of the .6x reducer is 56.2mm.  The camera and filter wheel are 26.5mm.  So you need about 29.8mm.  But it depends on your filter thickness.  My 3mm thick filters shortened the distance by 1/3 the filter thickness (about 1mm).  If you use 2mm thick filters, it will length the distance by 1mm (or it will remain what it is at 29.8....that I am not sure about).  I know its frustrating.  I wish they would just include the proper spacers for a camera of your choice.  Even if it cost an extra $50 it would save a lot of aggravation.

Rodd

 

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, fwm891 said:

Now that Rodd is a superb image - magic stuff.

I'll give it a go myself in a few months time...

Thanks Francis.....Good luck with it. 

Rodd

[Guest]

Hi Rodd,

It was also a big challenge to find the ADAPTERS to connect the  FSQ .6x  with the FSQ106, those adapters "$$$😂" were ordered and delivered already, now I am busy with the spacing adapters, and my spacing calculation is the same as you did already send in the answer above.

Soon, I will deliver a result " I hope "

 

Thank you

 

Martin

 

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, artem said:

Hi Rodd,

It was also a big challenge to find the ADAPTERS to connect the  FSQ .6x  with the FSQ106, those adapters "$$$😂" were ordered and delivered already, now I am busy with the spacing adapters, and my spacing calculation is the same as you did already send in the answer above.

Soon, I will deliver a result " I hope "

 

Thank you

 

Martin

 

Looking forward to seeing it!

Rodd