M16 Ha up close

[Shiraz]

Hi.
had a couple of hours of very good seeing and just had to revisit M16 in Ha. I like the appearance in Ha and this level of detail is rarely available at shorter wavelengths, so will probably stay monochrome. This data was undersampled, so tried out the new drizzle in Pixinsight - it works well.
Thanks for looking. Regards ray

heavily cropped image
scaled to page: http://www.astrobin.com/full/101364/0/
full scale: http://www.astrobin.com/full/101364/0/?real=&mod=

about 3 hours of 5 minute subs.
Skywatcher 250f4 with RCC1
NEQ6
SX H694

[Rod771]

Very clean image Ray!

Lovely detail :thumbsup:

Oh yeah! The drizzle tool works great, although it really put quite a load on my pc. It took almost an hour to get through BBP (I was calibrating with new flats, that wouldn't have help with duration)

[Andy01]

ooooohhh, nice :thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

That is remarkable resolution for an 8 inch scope. Stunning.

Greg.

[SkyViking]

Wonderful detail Ray, it's very impressive!
Yes the drizzle algorithm is great, I've played with it on some data I'm currently collecting and it looks very promising. :thumbsup:

[Shiraz]

Thanks Rod. I selected an ROI and it crunched through 35 subs in no time - very impressed.


thanks Andy


Hi Greg. This is with a 250 f4 Skywatcher - I retired the 200 GSO and now have the luxury of a CF scope :thumbsup: - which is a major plus at f4. At this site, I have always been seeing limited, even with the old 200mm scope - an 8 inch scope will resolve just as well as a 20 inch under these conditions. I have the sampling at 0.9 arc sec, but have occasionally had seeing below 2 arcsec - ie it's undersampled. Drizzle looks like being a great way to take advantage of this (very welcome) problem.


Thanks Rolf. Drizzle was fairly painless in PI, but in combination with deconvolution, generated some messy artefacts on the brightest stars - left them in for info, but it is only a cosmetic issue that will probably be fairly easy to fix with careful masking.

Regards ray

[strongmanmike]

...:question:...Bustardo! :sadeyes:

He he, excellent...where was that sort of seeing night before last? :doh:

Mike :thumbsup:

[pluto]

That's amazing, what a great image :)

[Shiraz]

It was over here :D.

Seems you copped a bit of flack :lol:, but seeing does what it wants and I reckon we just have to be grateful for whatever the atmosphere provides



thanks Hugh.

regards ray

[strongmanmike]

Yeah yeah, rub it in :sadeyes:

;)

[Octane]

That is remarkable! Wow. :O

With the FSQ/STL, I'll definitely be undersampled, and, I always dither my images.

Might have to go back and reprocess some old data...

Thank you for sharing this stunner!

H

[MrB]

Very, very nice!

[Shiraz]

thanks H. I guess that your data should respond well to super-res processing with drizzle - looking forward to seeing the results.


thank you Simon.

regards Ray

[multiweb]

:jawdrop: That's insane.

[RickS]

Fantastic detail, Ray! I would have expected more noise using drizzle with 3 hours of subs but I guess it is a bright object.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Shiraz]

Thanks a lot Marc


Hi Rick. I was also surprised at how little noise there was - other drizzle implementations can be really ropey.

Looks like they added drizzle code to run in parallel to the already excellent standard stacking, with links across to take advantage of the proven normalisation etc. Smart approach and it works very well at controlling noise. Had to do a little bit of noise reduction in the darker parts of the image, but not a lot.

[Paul Haese]

Nice Ray. I like the little jets coming out of the main column. Nice crisp data. Contrast is good too.

[sjastro]

Very nice Ray.

On the subject of NIR imaging, there is a good comparison of M16 imaged in visible and NIR.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/starlog/m16L.html

Regards

Steven

[Joshua Bunn]

Sweet image Ray, love the contrast and monochrome suits this target i think. Your doing some great work with your gear.

[Peter.M]

The part of that page where they show a false colour image of the nebula and say that it is "visible" is a little deceptive in my opinion. I guess they are in the visible spectrum.
Great image there though!

[Shiraz]

Thanks Paul. It was nice to get some more good seeing - had a few good sessions this winter, although they rarely last much longer than a couple of hours.


Thansk Steven - very interesting link, thanks.


Thanks Joshua - appreciate your comments.


Thanks peter. I guess in this case "visible" means "visible if you have really different eyes". very interesting comparo though.

regards Ray