M1-Ha

[Rodd]

TOA 130 with ASI 1600, 3nm Astrodon filter, 61 300 sec subs

I would have liked to collect more data for the Ha channel, but that appears not to be possible in the foreseable future.  Conditions were pretty bad throught the collection of this data--a full Moon (and poor seeing) for half of it, and very poor seeing for the other half.  I obtained a smaller pixl guide cam in hopes to increase my guiding resolution in efforts to reduce my over FWHM values of my subs.  But I have yet to use it--iy was -10C last night and I just could bring myself to fiddle with changing my guidecam--I don't think the Altair Astro 178 is the same diameter as the Lodestar 2x, so I will need to fiddle with connection tubes and cables and focus and probably grmelins in teh divers, etc.  It wasa brutal night...so I stuck with the Lodestar.  I am not sure in the 3 arsec/pix FWHM value of this image is due to poor seeing or too low of a guide cam resolution, but its the best I could manage (and I threw out almost half the subs).  I probably should have software binned this data, but I want the image scale--in fact I had hoped to crop so that it was larger for viewing--but at this point the data can't support it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rodd]

And here's a binned 2x2 in software version up sample to be almost as big

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Added OIII.  OIII data decent, but Bicolored images always give me trouble.  FWIW

[Taman]

Nice image!

Noise is well controlled and the stars are round, so you should be able to do a reasonable crop.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Nice images, I love the Bi-Colour

Steve

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Taman said:

Noise is well controlled and the stars are round, so you should be able to do a reasonable crop.

Thanks--this is a pretty decent crop.  Not ethe size of the image blow (157 kb).  I probably need to redo them and save them appropriately.  I am still playing around with scale.  I have never been very apt at bicolor images--except for a few.  I can never seem to do them very well.  Anyway--I have revised the palette a bit

3 hours ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Nice images, I love the Bi-Colour

Thanks--Bicolored images are hard for me--Here's a slightly different one.  this was actually teh original that I though should be more red--but it turned out pink.  So, back to this one.

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Yes I think that is actually better for me, I prefer more subtle colouring (so much of this processing is down to personal preference) but still has all the detail.

Steve

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Yes I think that is actually better for me, I prefer more subtle colouring (so much of this processing is down to personal preference) but still has all the detail.

Steve

I agree--Bicolored images are definitely not my forte.  I am looking forward to collecting the SII--though now that I think about it, I have never really liked narrowband M1 images (I prefer broadband with some Ha/OIII thrown in).  I remember doing it several years ago and I got a rainbow coloring.  It could have been due to me not knowing what I was doing...we'll find out! 

Rodd

[teoria_del_big_bang]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I agree--Bicolored images are definitely not my forte. 

Well you could have fooled me.

But I am still at the start of a big learning curve regarding processing anyway and learning Pixinsight and PhotoShop. but slowly I am getting there. I am beginning to love PI as I now kind of understand the logic behind it and find it really well written and now fairly easy to follow, in parallel I am also trying to learn PS but still not got to grips with that yet. When I started this I was amazed to see how some people can get so much out of so little with good processing and realised that getting the data was probably not even half the story and there was a lot more to this before you get some of these wonderful images seen on this forum.

I look forward to seeing what the SII does for the image 🙂 

Steve

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

but slowly I am getting there. I am beginning to love PI as I now kind of understand the logic behind it and find it really well written and now fairly easy to follow

I know what you mean...when I started out--only a few years ago I did not understand anything.  I used CCDops (for a while--its basic software that came with the SBIG camera--it is not even meant for acquisition--just testing and diagnostics!  I finally got Maxim for acquisition though I own SGL too--never have used it though because at the time I was using a self guiding camera and interfacing with pHD2, while possible, was complex.  With my set up now I have used PHD2--but to really learn it I need to take time away from data collection...and I cant bring myself to do that...that's why I do not know how to plate solve, auto focus, and those types of things.  But at least I was able to start collecting decent data.  Your right about processing--it is so much of what we do.  I feel as if there is an unseen world just out of my reach that I can't access.  I will give some data to a real pro and the image they come up with using my data and the same processing software makes me say..."what am I missing!  What can't I see?"  PI has many layers, from basic to extremely complex.  Not only the tools themselves, but the order of operations, and the combination of various steps with various tools.   Some of the light vortex tutorials are difficult and really take a lot of effort to master.  I am sure PS is the same--easy to expert...it has to be.  I attended a week long PI seminar given by the writers of PI--it was when I didn't even know what linear state meant!  I regret not having known more when I went--I was the dunce of the class for sure.  But it helped, and is today the foundation of my processing.  I would highly recommend one if its possible for you.

I will post a SHO image if I ever get the clear sky to capture it!

Rodd

[simmo39]

Last one is brilliant!

[Rodd]

45 minutes ago, simmo39 said:

Last one is brilliant!

Thanks Simmo!

Rodd

[tomato]

Very nice, you  can see the ‘brain stem’ feature coming through at the top of the Nebula which was so noticeable on Olly’s recent post. I look for it on all M1 images now!

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, tomato said:

Very nice, you  can see the ‘brain stem’ feature coming through at the top of the Nebula which was so noticeable on Olly’s recent post. I look for it on all M1 images now!

Thanks Tomato. I think i clipped a bit of the faint stuff dealing with the background noise. Hopefully when I add the SII I won’t have to be so aggressive and the extensions will be more prominent

Rodd

[astro mick]

Hi Rodd.The Ha data is really good,and I do like that image a lot.But I don't think you have hit your goal,or your usual exerllent standard with the Bi-Colour image.It does,nt sit quite right to my eyes at least.

I don't think your totally happy with the Bi-Colour either.

Colour though is a personal preference,and I,m sure other people will love it.

Mick.

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Hi Rodd.The Ha data is really good,and I do like that image a lot.But I don't think you have hit your goal,or your usual exerllent standard with the Bi-Colour image.It does,nt sit quite right to my eyes at least.

I don't think your totally happy with the Bi-Colour either.

Colour though is a personal preference,and I,m sure other people will love it.

Mick.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.  Then again I am rarely happy with my bicolored attempts. Only the veil and Thor’s helmet buck the trend.  I do think the last version is the best and, it has grown on me a little.  But for bicolor, there seems always to be white areas, even in the veil. 
I will be adding SII.  And I might shoot some rgb (I really like rgb crab nebulae)

Rodd

[Mr Spock]

Looks really good. There's lots of detail. 

I'm never sure about bi-colour images. I suppose it's down to personal taste as to whether they are good or not.

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Looks really good. There's lots of detail. 

I'm never sure about bi-colour images. I suppose it's down to personal taste as to whether they are good or not.

Michael...you look so......eary.  What were we talking about?

Bicolored images.....Its not so much the color that bothers me--though it does in this case a bit, then again full Hubble Palette images of M1 kind of bother me--They tend to be rainbowish.  But its more how the data interacts.  There are details in the OIII and Ha that get lost somehow.  Maybe thats true in any case.  Well see if the clouds ever break!

Rodd

[MartinB]

That second bicolour works for me.  If you are ever tempted to do a full Hubble Palette you will discover the colour is nothing like the classic NASA image

[Rodd]

10 minutes ago, MartinB said:

That second bicolour works for me.  If you are ever tempted to do a full Hubble Palette you will discover the colour is nothing like the classic NASA image

I know--they look like a rainbow--like a bowl of skittles.  I am not fond of it.  I did it a long time ago and was hoping it was my ineptitude at the time.  that is why I usually prefer M1 in HaLRGB--but I have come so far!

Rodd