Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

The Bubble and It's Center - SHO


Recommended Posts

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

bubble nebula.jpg

  • Like 23
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

image.png.3923b115611e8543e8914a8c6439e12d.png

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

image.png.b99103cb574daeba41fec3e16d46a8bc.png

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

image.png.3923b115611e8543e8914a8c6439e12d.png

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

image.png.b99103cb574daeba41fec3e16d46a8bc.png

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.