Trying for Abell 39....

[RichieJarvis]

Well, after seeing that lovely pic of Abell 39 that someone (I can't remember who it was - sorry!) shot the other day, I thought I'd have a go...

Its one faint puppy - or that could be the high cloud - or the barlow - here's a 20 minute OIII sub @ F/14 - just 1 - trying for a 30 minute sub atm....

[Beyond_Vision]

Come on Richie your optics need cleaning

[Coco]

Now that looked brighter last night on my PC. And I'd had 6 vodies!

[661-pete]

That's a nice clear, crisp image there richie, but... that there dirty thumb-print...

Actually, no, come now, we shouldn't take the p***! Excellent start to what must be THE most difficult object presented on SGL to date, and we look forward to a splendid result with more data from your direction, (presumably adding some Ha). And after seeing the wizardry you worked on M97 the other day, down at AAS, I'm sure we can expect great things!

[RichieJarvis]

Well - it got cloudier, and cloudier, and so the 30 minute subs (2 of em I waited for!) I couldn't even see this guy on....

Ah well - will have to try again another night.

[johnh]

Hello Ritchey I am the one who imaged this last week and it is tricky as it needs a moonless night even in O3 and it has no H alpha making it difficult at the moment. But keep going don't let it beat you! JohnH.

[CELESCOPE]

Nice try Richie ,tried myself but could,nt see it ehheheheheh , that John is teasing us i reckon lol ,Grrrr we willget itone day .

Rog

[paulobao]

Hi Richie,

what gear did you used for that frame? did you really shoot at f/14?

This object should not be more dificult that the undesignated PN (est. mag of 15.0).

Let see what I can catch in the next 2 weeks (hope the clouds go away soon!).

Regards,

paulo

[RichieJarvis]

Hi Paulo - I am not sure whether it is truly F/14!! I did use a 2x Barlow, but as I haven't checked the FoV yet, I do not know whether its really F/14 - in theory it should be, but until I run it through astrometry.net and compare the FoV figures, I won't know for sure. I've found in the past that it all depends on where the barlow lens is in relation to the camera - currently, the barlow lense is unscrewed from its housing and screwed into the front of the camera.

I'll have to check it once I get a decent enough set of subs to run through astrometry.

Cheers,

Richie

[RichieJarvis]

Here is the first 4 hours of data - very very faint with the 2x barlow on - I am having to take 30 minute subs just to get enough data to play with!!!

This is heavily over-processed as well, but at least its showing up!

I am beginning to think this is a dead loss, and maybe I ought to take the barlow out and shoot at F/7 - any thoughts?

Thanks for looking,

Richie

[Aza]

I dont really know, but wouldnt it be best to take the luminence first?

And the use the OIII as the green channel?

Isnt it the luminence that will show the detail more?

(I am a DSLR user, so may not be talking sense!)

[Psychobilly]

Well if thats 4 hours worth I'd give up... not like we get a lot of clear skies is it and John has shown us a cracking image of it....

But if your a masochist keep going.... only you can decide....

Peter...

[paulobao]

Hi Richie,

Much nicer now.

Just keep going since you have already that data to accumulate. 4 hours is't that much in NB! Make it you own project (mine is the undesignated bubble. Unfortunately we have a lousy weather at the moment and for the next days too:icon_confused:.)

Regards,

paulo

[johnh]

Glad you could get more data but I probably got the last of the dark skies till August as moonlight does seriously degrade narrowband with faint objects. Your barlow will also seriously dim the planetary too, the heavy processing shows quite a bit of detail. John.

[RichieJarvis]

thanks all - I didn't go through the subs before I stacked those, so I might be able to ferret things out a bit better with another shot - going to try later on today (probably....)

Richie

[Sam]

Crikey Richie, you've picked a tricky one!

[RichieJarvis]

Yup - its a tricky one, but fun

Just reprocessed my data - threw away a whole bunch of images, so its now only 3 hours and 10 minutes included.

Here is the latest process of the data - I think I'll call it a day for now with this one though.

Full details: South Common Observatory

Cheers,

Richie

[Sam]

That's a lot better, getting rid of the bad subs has made a big difference!

[ollypenrice]

See, you got the blighter! We should never give up on a tough one. (I have my own bit of massochism planned out but more of that in a month or two.) As for f14, boy, that's slow. I think I'd have ditched the barlow and gone for saturation of data rather than image scale. But then you did the reprocessed version so I think I would have been wrong.

Olly

[RichieJarvis]

Shooting with the Barlow is really a non-starter I am discovering, but at the moment, its all I have to get a reasonable scale on these small nebs!

Maybe one day I'll be able to buy myself an SCT for this sort of thing...

[Aza]

The reprocess is a massive improvement over the other ones! I hear OIII suffers quite a lot under moonlight, a lot more than Ha does. So I am sure that wasnt helping matters!