NGC7000 and Friend

[Rodd]

Another image with a long processing history--like a dusty battlefield.  A slight windows system tweak is what it needed.   FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 with 3nm Astrodon filters.  About 9.5 hours.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Rodd

[alan potts]

Wow, stunning such tight control of the stars, an area where i need to improve though this is by far not the only area. Those Tak scope really do punch their weight.

Alan

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, alan potts said:

Wow, stunning such tight control of the stars, an area where i need to improve though this is by far not the only area. Those Tak scope really do punch their weight.

Alan

Thanks Alan. With the .6x reducer the FL is only 318 mm.  That combined with the small pixels helps keep the stars very small

[fwm891]

Great image Rodd. Processing nightmare I guess.

[carastro]

Quite beautiful Rodd.

Tell me how you managed to only show the brightest stars (which are small) and not show any of the background smaller stars at all.  Did you do a starless image and then put the brighter ones back?

Carole 

Edited November 12, 2019 by carastro

[glowingturnip]

loving the zoom-in detail on that, very very nice

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, fwm891 said:

Great image Rodd. Processing nightmare I guess.

Thanks Francis.    Not too bad.  Not clipping the foreground dust was a bit of a challenge, as was palette--but that is pretty typical for me.  This target is very bright, with a nice strong signal, so that really helped keep noise down

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, carastro said:

Quite beautiful Rodd.

Tell me how you managed to only show the brightest stars (which are small) and not show any of the background smaller stars at all.  Did you do a starless image and then put the brighter ones back?

Carole 

Thanks Carole--no, I do not know how to do a starless image.  I don't recall the specifics of this processing--most of which was completed a while ago.  The recent tweaks did not impact the stars at all.  In general, I use morphological transformation a little (I do not like to use a lot) and I reduce star brightness by creating a very tight fitting star mask (usually covers all but the largest stars) and using curves to gently bring down brightness.  Also, sometimes I use a star mask to cover the stars while gently stretching the image with the histogram tool.   One thing I do with SHO images--or I used to do all the time and now I do only sometime is replace the SHO stars with Ha stars--which tend to be smaller.  Probably a combination of things helped keep the stars at bay.

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, glowingturnip said:

loving the zoom-in detail on that, very very nice

Thanks Stuart.   That is one attribute of the short focal length, mid sized sensor, and small pixels that I like (widish FOV and higher than normal resolution for the FOV)--it provides for crops that can stand alone as images--or, as you note, it lets one zoom in and pan around.  

Rodd

[ApophisAstros]

Ditto everyone's comments,such great fine detail , shows all the hard work!🤩

Roger

[Rodd]

16 minutes ago, apophisOAS said:

Ditto everyone's comments,such great fine detail , shows all the hard work!🤩

Roger

Thanks Roger.....someday it will get easy..........I hope

 

Rodd

[ollypenrice]

Flawless, Rodd.

Olly

Edited November 12, 2019 by ollypenrice
Typo

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, ollypenrice said:

Flawless, Rodd.

Olly

Thanks Olly...you are too kind.  It does make me want to get back to the FSQ and .6x reducer though.  Lots of appropriate targets are on the rise.

Rodd