The Bubble and It's Center - SHO

[Mr_42tr0nomy]

Greetings Folks


I have been eagerly waiting the rise of the Milky Way. I cannot handle shooting galaxies in bortle 7 any longer! That being said he is an edit of some older SHO data collected early fall of 2020 right outside of Cincinnati, Ohio (B7)

The Bubble Nebula - This is, and will likely remain the some of the best data I'll collect for the foreseeable future. My seeing conditions were spectacular during the three nights of capture and the data acquisition process was flawless allowing me to get the best out of three full nights. My goal for this image was to capture the internal star forming region within this nebula in some detail. The Hubble view of this nebula really inspired me to kneed out the details best I could. The nitty gritty is what I am about when it comes to astrophotography and I tried my hardest to preserve it. I I really hope you all enjoy!
----------------------------
Equipment:
10" f/ 3.9
Asi183mm
Cem60
Astrodon 3nm SHO
Bortle 7

Here is the full Resolution image: https://www.astrobin.com/full/9wgrj3/0/?nc=user

[Adreneline]

I really like the almost 3D nature of the Bubble.

Can I ask which processing software you use?

Adrian

[Mr_42tr0nomy]

Just now, Adreneline said:

I really like the almost 3D nature of the Bubble.

Can I ask which processing software you use?

Adrian

Thanks Adrian,

For this photo, I used PixInsight only! I typically go through Photoshop for further noise reductions or color correction as well.

[Adreneline]

1 minute ago, Mr_42tr0nomy said:

I used PixInsight only!

Hope you don't mind me saying but there is a really easy way to fix magenta halos in PI.

[Adreneline]

Ooops - hit Submit accidently.

If you Invert the image - apply SCNR - and then re-invert the image the halos disappear.

Hope this is of interest.

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

7 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

If you Invert the image - apply SCNR - and then re-invert the image the halos disappear.

 

Removing Green I presume ?

Steve

[Mr_42tr0nomy]

12 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

Hope you don't mind me saying but there is a really easy way to fix magenta halos in PI.

yEs, I typically invert and SCNR green but that also took the magenta hues away from the central region of the bubble which I did want to keep. I could have made a mask and uploaded it into Photoshop and adjusted the mask even further but It wasnt of too much concern for me. I dont typically like the magenta stars but for this image, I didnt mind them at all

[Adreneline]

1 minute ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Removing Green I presume ?

Steve

Yes, that's correct. Magenta is the complementary colour to Green. I think basically any colour is good in a narrowband image but Magenta doesn't appear in the spectrum so I personally think it's fair to remove it - unless of course you are a fan of Magenta.

[Ouroboros]

Pretty amazing image. The bubble looks very delicate! 

[vlaiv]

This is really sharp and detail is very good.

I must notice that not only sky but 10" and CEM60 are components needed to capture such high resolution detail.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Incredible detail for such  a small target

Steve

[Mr_42tr0nomy]

22 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

This is really sharp and detail is very good.

I must notice that not only sky but 10" and CEM60 are components needed to capture such high resolution detail.

The large aperture and smaller pixels really help to hit those smaller details. Especially with a fast scope

[vlaiv]

Just now, Mr_42tr0nomy said:

The large aperture and smaller pixels really help to hit those smaller details. Especially with a fast scope

I'm not sure about smaller pixels though. In my view image is still over sampled.

What is your original pixel scale - somewhere around 0.5"/px?

I'd say that your image has resolution of about 1"/px - which is still exceptional, and data goes really deep.

I imaged bubble at 0.5"/px as well - but did not leave it like that, opted to bin x2 for 1"/px, however, mine has slightly less resolution compared to your image and your goes much deeper. I did it with 8" RC scope and Heq5.

Here is a quick comparison of the two at 1"/px (btw - notice very similar SHO processing)

Your obviously goes much deeper - just look at detail in nebulosity and it does have slightly higher resolution. It might not be apparent straight away - but look at spikes on that bright star - they are slimmer in your image - which means that star jumped around less and has smaller FWHM. To some extent, this can be seen in the stars as well - yours look tighter - more pin point.

In any case - this shows that no detail is lost when imaging at 1"/px really, so I don't think that pixel size played a part - but again, I might be mistaken there.

 

 

[Mr_42tr0nomy]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

I'm not sure about smaller pixels though. In my view image is still over sampled.

What is your original pixel scale - somewhere around 0.5"/px?

I'd say that your image has resolution of about 1"/px - which is still exceptional, and data goes really deep.

I imaged bubble at 0.5"/px as well - but did not leave it like that, opted to bin x2 for 1"/px, however, mine has slightly less resolution compared to your image and your goes much deeper. I did it with 8" RC scope and Heq5.

Here is a quick comparison of the two at 1"/px (btw - notice very similar SHO processing)

Your obviously goes much deeper - just look at detail in nebulosity and it does have slightly higher resolution. It might not be apparent straight away - but look at spikes on that bright star - they are slimmer in your image - which means that star jumped around less and has smaller FWHM. To some extent, this can be seen in the stars as well - yours look tighter - more pin point.

In any case - this shows that no detail is lost when imaging at 1"/px really, so I don't think that pixel size played a part - but again, I might be mistaken there.

 

 

I think that you are likely correct in that I am and always will be a tad over sampled at .50". My seeing conditions dont support this resolution. I did see somewhat of a difference in resolution between my asi1600 with my newt and my asi183 and my newt. That could be differences in processing, seeing conditions, etc. There are too many variables to compare my two images rigs. I now have the asi294mm (2.36um) which I use for my newt and my smaller refractors. This seemed to be the best camera option for all of my scopes.

[vlaiv]

1 hour ago, Mr_42tr0nomy said:

I think that you are likely correct in that I am and always will be a tad over sampled at .50"

There is an easy way to check that. Take your linear stack and measure FWHM (you can do it in say AstroImageJ with CTRL-click, or is it Shift-click on a star - does quick FWHM measurement). There is simple relation between good sampling rate and FWHM in arc seconds which is x1.6 - sampling rate x1.6 needs to be FWHM. It you measure your stars to be less than 1.6" FWHM then it makes sense to go below 1"/px.