Jump to content

548140465_Animationchallenge.jpg.32379dfa6f3bf4bba537689690df680e.jpg

M51 and some other wee galaxies


powerlord
 Share

Recommended Posts

More and more impressed with this TS-Photon 150 the more I use it.

This was shot last night - an hour of each R,G,B and 25 mins of Ha.

Processed in Siril, startools and affinity.

I've annotated it with astrometry.net

some really tiny galaxies picked out there.

M51.whirlpool-RGB-cbg.startools.thumb.jpg.3fde3b94826937991005b4db8426f6e5.jpg

 

m51.anotated.thumb.jpg.9ee1730f0b5351f2954544887c4c4d60.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, powerlord said:

voila.

Not seeing it :D

image.png.4f059396606f04738e60f4d07747b3f1.png

6 minutes ago, powerlord said:

Sorry - not a star peeper so didn't really notice.

I appreciate people don't really zoom in to see their data at 100% - but if you are going to post it at full resolution - well, then don't be surprised if people want to look at the data at 100% in order to see smallest detail capture.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, that's better than before yes ?

what you see there, is what I got out of stacking with APP. seems to only be some that are 'doubled'. maybe stacked a few dodgy files I supppose.

Edited by powerlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Not seeing it :D

image.png.4f059396606f04738e60f4d07747b3f1.png

I appreciate people don't really zoom in to see their data at 100% - but if you are going to post it at full resolution - well, then don't be surprised if people want to look at the data at 100% in order to see smallest detail capture.

wasnt having a go, just genuinely didn't notice. As I said above - might be I stacked a frame I shouldn't have stacked. not stacking it might sharpen M51 too, so I'll have a look tomorrow - see if I can find the culprit - it was 60 sec subs - all 185 of em, so i skipped through them pretty quickly (prefer an eyeball check before i put them into APP). chances are I missed a rubbish one or two.

Edited by powerlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, powerlord said:

wasnt having a go, just genuinely didn't notice. As I said above - might be I stacked a frame I shouldn't have stacked. not stacking it might sharpen M51 too, so I'll have a look tomorrow - see if I can find the culprit - it was 60 sec subs - all 185 of em, so i skipped through them pretty quickly (prefer an eyeball check before i put them into APP). chances are I missed a rubbish one or two.

I think it is something to do with processing.

Aside that those stars are funny shaped and somewhat large - they are processed in the way I would not expect and that seems to be the trend - they look "flat" as if they don't have a core.

Look for example this:

image.png.d674116eefa90bdf44aa94aaab81c8fe.png

That star has brightness "stopped" somewhere around grey - like you did not want that star to shine and be bright.

That star is very bright - yet brightest pixel is something like 170/255.

Skirt / halo and spikes around the stars should be faint - yet they are equally bright. That sort of makes flat appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh that is just intentional. just liked them that way. but the other stars above are not 'unprocessed' - just as stacked.

but yeh, some of the brighter ones, I pulled back in after dimming the others. There's no core, because that's what the stack was - maxed out. I just popped them back in to give the composition some framing.

I'm not in any way aiming for scientific accuracy here.

stu

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, powerlord said:

So.. turns out al the subs are like that. collimation thing ?

First check orientation of elongation and see if they align with RA or DEC.

Compare that to your guide log (if you have it) and see if there is possibly something in the guiding that will cause these. Also - see if it could be flex.

Best way to check for flex is to see if there is constant drift between subs (compare star positions over multiple subsequent subs).

In the end - check collimation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, powerlord said:

So.. turns out al the subs are like that. collimation thing ?

here's one sub:

1844040396_Screenshot2022-01-15at15_50_03.thumb.png.a5fd8728edf9f517fc86aa0543c62b86.png

Looks like the kind of artifacts i get when my newtonian is not properly cooled down and tube currents are still present. Did you image straight away from setting up outdoors or wait a while? Sometimes it can take about an hour for my 200mm to be fully ambient and these artifacts go away. Check the your early subs and compare them to your last ones, if the early ones look like this but the last ones are clean this was caused by tube currents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Looks like the kind of artifacts i get when my newtonian is not properly cooled down and tube currents are still present. Did you image straight away from setting up outdoors or wait a while? Sometimes it can take about an hour for my 200mm to be fully ambient and these artifacts go away. Check the your early subs and compare them to your last ones, if the early ones look like this but the last ones are clean this was caused by tube currents.

Here is an example i found from my catalogue of subs:

2022-01-15T16_08_14.thumb.png.60c6d25e199c3ae8735d238afd06c22a.png

2022-01-15T16_09_10.thumb.png.7ff93bacb6ae29cceedfc7071fb4aa14.png

First one is straight after setting up on a night when i did not have time to cool down the scope properly. Second is 2 hours later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.