Rosette Nebula HaSHO

[Rodd]

Due to endless nights of cloud, rain, wind, fog, etc., etc., ect., I decided to experiment with my recently acquired Ha data, as I am won't to do.  I used OIII and SII data from the FSQ 106 reduced (318 mm) and Ha data from the TOA native (well reduced by .01x).  Since I always use Ha as a luminance in SHO images, there is quite a bit more Ha influence in the image than OIII or SII.  As there is quite a  difference between pixel scales of .79" and 2.46", I had to upsample the OIII and SII to achieve alignment.  The image is displayed at .79", which represents Bin 1 for the TOA.  The big question is would it be worthwhile to collect OIII and SII with the TOA.  Opinions on this are most welcome. 

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600 (Ha: 50 300 sec); FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 (OIII: 47 300 sec; SII: 54 300 sec)

 

 

[Mr Spock]

Lovely image quality 👍

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Lovely image quality 👍

Thanks Spock (or should I say evil Spock?).  Wondering if all TOA data would be noticiably better

[Kinch]

Hi Rodd......I just looked at my web page (https://www.kinchastro.com/rosette-nebula.html) and I have 8 different Rosette images, processed at various times (2020 - 2022) with the same data. It was fun doing things slightly differently each time but none of them are the "final image". Perhaps in a year's time I will go back and play with the data again.

Bottom line - we never achieve that perfect image. We amuse ourselves when we have the time, trying to make that final image that we will never want to change.  It rarely comes!  

In this instance, you must ask yourself if the time needed to gather more data with the TOA will give you that final image (never to be touched again)......OR....would your time be better spent picking a new target and starting afresh with TOA or FSQ  - as pleases you. Nobody, but yourself can answer the question that you have thrown open to the floor here. In the end, only you will truly see the minute differences between one "final image" and the next "final image" and it follows then, that only you will decide what is..... THE final ... that needs no more data...no more processing!

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, Kinch said:

Hi Rodd......I just looked at my web page (https://www.kinchastro.com/rosette-nebula.html) and I have 8 different Rosette images, processed at various times (2020 - 2022) with the same data. It was fun doing things slightly differently each time but none of them are the "final image". Perhaps in a year's time I will go back and play with the data again.

Bottom line - we never achieve that perfect image. We amuse ourselves when we have the time, trying to make that final image that we will never want to change.  It rarely comes!  

In this instance, you must ask yourself if the time needed to gather more data with the TOA will give you that final image (never to be touched again)......OR....would your time be better spent picking a new target and starting afresh with TOA or FSQ  - as pleases you. Nobody, but yourself can answer the question that you have thrown open to the floor here. In the end, only you will truly see the minute differences between one "final image" and the next "final image" and it follows then, that only you will decide what is..... THE final ... that needs no more data...no more processing!

In general I agree. But in this case, my question pertains more to the data then the final product.  Would the data be better if I collect equal amounts of OIII and SII with the TOA. So I refer to image potential not necessarily the final image that I manage to create

[Sunshine]

Oh wow this is beautiful! I know diddly nothing about processing but I know when it’s right.

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

Oh wow this is beautiful! I know diddly nothing about processing but I know when it’s right.

Thanks, sunshine….like a ray of….solar radiation on a gloomy day!

[Sunshine]

11 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks, sunshine….like a ray of….solar radiation on a gloomy day!

Aren’t I just a ray of sunshine? 😂

[alan potts]

Stunning shot Rodd, one of your best in a very large list.

Alan

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

Stunning shot Rodd, one of your best in a very large list.

Alan

Thanks Alan. 

[Kinch]

7 hours ago, Rodd said:

So I refer to image potential not necessarily the final image that I manage to create

That is a hypothetical question. On the face of it the answer is yes - because there would be less processing of the data.

In the real world though....you can only tell by making an image with the data.....and your results may or may not bring that potential to the fore. (This is simply because there are so many variables at play when processing the data....for example....process the same data on two consecutive weeks and you will have two different images from the same data).