Tarantula Nebula

[Rodd]

Once again not impressed with insight observatory data, which came from a 17" CDK in Chile and a 110000 CCD camera.  I marvel at how my calibrated stacks from data cozilly swaddled in the jetstream can look way better than  stacks from a Bortle 1/2 location.  I lose almost 30% of the frame.

Anyway--this is about 8 hopurs of RGB.  I really wish I had access to this target.  I also wish they had thought to capture Ha.

 

 

 

Edited May 25 by Rodd
Darj Srtructures

[Rodd]

I added a bit of color.

 

 

Edited May 25 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Well--never satisfioed. n Looks cartoonish, so I backed off the palette a bit

[Roy Foreman]

I prefer the second version. I too was disappointed with downloaded data, mine was from telescope live. Only 3 subs per channel, and 5 hours integration from a pristine mountaintop in Australia produced less dust around M42 than I can gather in 30mins from murky somerset. Same with M57  and M27. But, of course, for objects like the tarantula nebula, this was your only option.

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, Roy Foreman said:

I prefer the second version. I too was disappointed with downloaded data, mine was from telescope live. Only 3 subs per channel, and 5 hours integration from a pristine mountaintop in Australia produced less dust around M42 than I can gather in 30mins from murky somerset. Same with M57  and M27. But, of course, for objects like the tarantula nebula, this was your only option.

thanks Roy. Two things confound me, the differences in screens, and the differences in what my eyes see, which is dependent on how many breaks I take. 

[Roy Foreman]

30 minutes ago, Rodd said:

thanks Roy. Two things confound me, the differences in screens, and the differences in what my eyes see, which is dependent on how many breaks I take. 

I have three screens, all calibrated, and each looks different. And as you rightly say, our eyes are far from constant. And I'm sure ambient lighting plays its part. Bearing all these things in mind I have to fight the urge to keep tweaking things, as it seems you do too !

[Vroobel]

That's a lovely image, I'm jealous. Because of a lack of access to the object I have to settle for seeing another tarantula... 😏 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 😇

 

 

[ollypenrice]

The blues look odd to me. The background seems a little colour-cold and the stars tend towards cycan. There's also a lot to like in the image and its a unique target.

Olly

[Rodd]

10 hours ago, Vroobel said:

That's a lovely image, I'm jealous. Because of a lack of access to the object I have to settle for seeing another tarantula... 😏 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 😇

 

 

That’s amazing processing, it looks almost exactly like a spider!😄

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The blues look odd to me. The background seems a little colour-cold and the stars tend towards cycan. There's also a lot to like in the image and its a unique target.

Olly

The data set is compromised somehow, which is not unusual for data from there.  I’ll have another go at it and see if I can get the wrinkles out 

[ollypenrice]

4 hours ago, Rodd said:

The data set is compromised somehow, which is not unusual for data from there.  I’ll have another go at it and see if I can get the wrinkles out 

Maybe 8 hours without luminance just isn't enough with the 11 meg Kodak CCD. It only has a 50% QE.  I've done hundreds of hours with this chip and like it in all sorts of ways, but it isn't fast. I'd always shoot luminance on a target like this.

I wonder how the data are calibrated. On mine it was best to use a bad pixel map and a master-bias-as-dark.

Olly

Edited May 27 by ollypenrice
Clarification

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Maybe 8 hours without luminance just isn't enough with the 11 meg Kodak CCD. It only has a 50% QE.  I've done hundreds of hours with this chip and like it in all sorts of ways, but it isn't fast. I'd always shoot luminance on a target like this.

I wonder how the data are calibrated. On mine it was best to use a bad pixel map and a master-bias-as-dark.

Olly

I kinda thought 8 hours was a bit light.