Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky
Hi Bert - as the others have said, it's rare to see the whole of this remnant at once, and the huge effort in data acquisition and processing to produce this is staggering!
One question on your integration in PI, do you tune the rejection parameters for each dataset? I often find that the optimal thresholds vary considerably between objects, and I keep adjusting the sliders until I start to see signal getting rejected, then back them off. I appreciate this may cause problems in a mosaic though, have you found this?
Cheers
Andrew
|
Andrew ideally when doing mosaics one would prefer that the Moon was not there, the seeing and transparency were the same, each panel had the same number of in focus high quality subs, and a lot more.
Over many nights and different weather conditions this is a forlorn assumption.
When we have so many variables it is foolish to introduce more variation in the data by fiddling with the processing parameters. This only leads to problems matching panels for the mosaic.
All data sets for each panel are processed identically for this reason.
There are far more problems with the OIII data as this is more susceptible to atmospheric attenuation and light pollution even with 3nm data. Atmospheric pollution and dust and don't even mention the Moon, has far more effect on OIII than NII, HA or SII.
I have all the data for OIII for the same area. Unfortunately a few too many of the panels were ruined by atmospheric conditions. The resulting mosaic was not good enough to produce a colour image with the same quality as the NII data.
Bert
