The Vela Supernova Remnant is made up of many complex tendrils of energised gas and covers an area of sky 8 degrees wide in the southern constellation of Vela. It was formed by a star 900 light years away, that exploded about 12,000 years ago.
This is a wavelength ordered, emission line image, taken using H-alpha, Oxygen3 and Sulphur2 narrow band filters and frames about a quarter of the huge ancient feature.
Remarkably this 7hrs of data was collected in barely 8 hours of darkness (including regular manual focusing and a manual meridian flip, re acquire and re framing) all on one night and under a 90% full moon (not ideal)
The OIII tendrils are the most fascinating feature of this SNR so I particularly wanted to emphasise these, a moonless night would have helped here of course. The result reminds me of a Jackson Pollock painting
All details are under the image
Vela Supernova Remnant - click cursor on the image and move it to pan around an enlarged version.
Very dramatic, Mike, and you certainly achieved the goal of emphasising the Oiii tendrils! It would look great on a wall. And at a fraction of the cost of a real Pollock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speach
equipment note would be nice
There are some details if you follow one of the links to Flickr.
I like it as it is, no need to darken the background. I know through my own wall mounted Vela SNR print, it is an object that needs to be as bright as possible. I have a gallery light on my metal print, but think a backlit acrylic print would 'pop' better.
He he thanks for checking the Done/Pollock abstract expressionist artwork out
I often err on the side of less contrast for some reason...having said that, it looks slightly different on different monitors..so I'll have a look later
Simon (Speach), if you can see an image I post via a link.. then you can see all the equipment/capture details underneath it
But what's with the star halos? I thought only cheapie scopes/cameras did that
Nup even $70K RC's show strange optical or reflective artifacts, GSO RC's and Newtonians can show strange radiating arcs in their diffraction patterns, even expensive Richardi Honders show strong circular rings around stars. In the case of halos like these, the optical design, the last element of the corrector or flattener, the CCD optical window, the filters and even the CCD cover slip, can all interact with reverse reflections to some degree or another, to cause interesting halos....in the end it is part and parcel of many opto-mechanical imaging systems... in some form or another
They are more prominent in some images than others, depending on the filters I have used and what combination I blended them as well as the degree of stretching and other secretive stuff I do
Hmmmm ... A little too much blue (your histograms are out of whack IMO) and a little too much saturation for my taste but, overall, with the wide field and fantastic structure, it's a compelling image. Tak make good scopes don't they!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Nup even $70K RC's show strange optical or reflective artifacts, GSO RC's and Newtonians can show strange radiating arcs in their diffraction patterns, even expensive Richardi Honders show strong circular rings around stars.
Thank goodness mine's only a $25k'ish RC (with depreciation = $100), so no substantial artifacts.
I love the elctric blue colour - and it's far more interesting than any of Pollock's loads of bollocks...
Have you got the focal reducer for the Tak? Not that you've run out of material at that focal length, but we get another couple of years of superb images when you do start using one
cheers,
Andrew
I was being cheeky of course, but I was genuinely surprised, I appreciate the care and attention you take with your images.
Looks a great piece of sky too
Ha ha I know, I am the king of Cheek
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc4darkskies
Hmmmm ... A little too much blue (your histograms are out of whack IMO) and a little too much saturation for my taste but, overall, with the wide field and fantastic structure, it's a compelling image. Tak make good scopes don't they!!
Thank goodness mine's only a $25k'ish RC (with depreciation = $100), so no substantial artifacts.
The data for this was pretty shight actually, with a near full moon (stupid, especially for the OIII... but I needded my fix ) and not enough data, so I definitely pushed this one driven by an insatiable level of Andy-esque artistic enthusiasm .. so forgive me if my histograms do not conform to the norm...I was being out there But I am glad you found it compelling none the less cus that was completely my aim
Oh and I love your scope
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky
I love the elctric blue colour - and it's far more interesting than any of Pollock's loads of bollocks...
Have you got the focal reducer for the Tak? Not that you've run out of material at that focal length, but we get another couple of years of superb images when you do start using one
cheers,
Andrew
Cheers Andrew and yes I will likely obtain the FR at some stage but it is bloody expensive...but as you say I can then bombard you all with 6deg square shots of stuff
The FSQ is a real deep imaging instrument. I used to marvel at that. Great tendrils and detail but as you say its a bit too pushed. I well understand the desire to get an image out when the opportunity arises.
Hi Mike,
it's a very pretty picture.
While there is more saturation than would be normal from you
it's got that wow factor.
Many APODs are like that - I think they get into LAB mode &
push the picture as far as they can for a stunning effect.
That's one hell of a lot better than the utter vomitous Pollock crap that the Australian Gubmint paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAY too much for ($1.3 million in 1973..thanks again Gough). Every time I look at it, it just disgusts me (Pollock's bollocks, not your image).
Last time my daughter approached Blue Poop...errr...Poles...too closely and the alarm went off, the guard got all huffy. I told her it's OK, no one in their right mind wants to touch the trash.
Oh, yeah, anyway, you distracted me sideways. NICE image Mike, in your typically flamboyant vividness.
The FSQ is a real deep imaging instrument. I used to marvel at that. Great tendrils and detail but as you say its a bit too pushed. I well understand the desire to get an image out when the opportunity arises.
Greg.
Oh yes, sometimes, the pull of a clear steady sky is addictive ...even with a god damn full Moon ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Hi Mike,
it's a very pretty picture.
While there is more saturation than would be normal from you
it's got that wow factor.
Many APODs are like that - I think they get into LAB mode &
push the picture as far as they can for a stunning effect.
cheers
Allan
Thanks Allan...yep, that's pretty much what I did
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
That's one hell of a lot better than the utter vomitous Pollock crap that the Australian Gubmint paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAY too much for ($1.3 million in 1973..thanks again Gough). Every time I look at it, it just disgusts me (Pollock's bollocks, not your image).
Last time my daughter approached Blue Poop...errr...Poles...too closely and the alarm went off, the guard got all huffy. I told her it's OK, no one in their right mind wants to touch the trash.
Well, aaactually...no wonder the guard got huffy..the great man Gough authorised a bloomin master stroke
Quote:
Oh, yeah, anyway, you distracted me sideways. NICE image Mike, in your typically flamboyant vividness.
Very painterly & I love the colour palette you've chosen.
Doesn't quite hold up to your usual level of technical mastery though, (the stars do look kinda odd) but if you're willing to let go of a little of that then BOOM, it jumps off the page!
Very painterly & I love the colour palette you've chosen.
Doesn't quite hold up to your usual level of technical mastery though, (the stars do look kinda odd) but if you're willing to let go of a little of that then BOOM, it jumps off the page!
Good one
Thanks Andy, she's bright and colourfull huh? ..thought you might like it, hopefully it still looks like an astro image though ...the colours aren't that far off true colour really.
Now, by odd, I assume you mean the small halos around some of the stars..? These halos are more prominent in NB and the heavy stretching I did plus the fact there is no RGB star data (which shows no halos) has made'em a bit more obvious
You can see what straight LRGB data looks like with this outfit in my Witchhead shot
) and not enough data, so I definitely pushed this one driven by an insatiable level of Andy-esque artistic enthusiasm 
.. so forgive me if my histograms do not conform to the norm...I was being out there 
...even with a god damn full Moon 
.... 
authorised a 
