Andale, andale, arriba, arriba...with extra decon (did I say that??)

[strongmanmike]

It's mini data time again, here's another quicky image :D

Seeing was just ok and had to hurry before the moon was too high and bright (green and blue taken with the moon rising), then fog came in :lol: buuut it was low in the west by then anyway ..so it is 3.5hrs of mini data :thumbsup:

EDIT: Now with some deconvolution applied to the Lum (but not the stars)

The Mexican Hat (http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/156154662/original)

Here's a Closer View (http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/156155469/original)

Can see a few globular clusters in that halo :)

Hubble Comparison (http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/156179093/original)

Mike

[ourkind]

Beautiful work Mike, the closeup is breathtaking! :thumbsup:



Mouse1: My seester knows Speedy Gonzales...

Mouse2: Everybody's seester knows Speedy Gonzales!

[gregbradley]

Wow, a lot of detail for only that amount of data.

Nice.

Greg.

[cybereye]

Miguel, Very nizz! :thumbsup:

"Come out little grazzhoppa, we won't urt you..."

Cheers,
Mario

[alpal]

Great result Mike.
You can see detail in the dust lane & the sides of the disc.
What was the FWHM?

cheers
Allan

[SkyViking]

Very nice capture Mike, mini-data is the new black I suppose. :lol:
The detail in the dust lane is pretty good. It even looks like you may be able to sharpen it a bit.
Yes that halo is full of globulars - now you have to count and label them! :D

[Rod771]

Nice detail and a great result Mike! :thumbsup:

Your mini is still longer than my maxi! (That sounds a bit odd :question:, No, I'm talking about the data :rolleyes: :D)

No flats, I still love that bit.

[RickS]

Great image, Mike, especially for a quickie. I reckon it needs some decon though :lol:

[LewisM]

¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba! ¡Epa! ¡Epa! ¡Epa! Yeehaw!

I am Jose, Jose Jimenez... I's gonna be an astro-nawt....

[Andy01]

Es un photo espectacular! :eyepop:

"Hola, pussycat! Are you looking for a nice mouse for dinner?"

[marco]

Beautiful Mike, despite the tiny size of this galaxy you managed to get lots of details. Processing very natural and deep as usual :thumbsup:
Cheers
Marco

[Paul Haese]

Pretty good detail Mike. My image scale is slightly bigger than yours, so this gives me an idea of what this will look like with the RC12. You guys must have had a drought this part of the year. We have had nothing but cloud for a lot of nights. Being able to image three objects and a hat is a bit of a privilege here at present.

The colouring is good too for your galaxy and detail in the dust lanes. Blue stars look a little washed out but that could have been the moons effect.

More data. :P

[strongmanmike]

Thanks for checking it out guys :thumbsup:

For those who think it might handle more sharpening...:rofl: I sharpened the begeezus out'a the mini data already :scared: any more and it will "look" artificially sharpened and as for decon :stupid: :eyepop: Blah! I don't want little fake worms in my Mexican Hat...in my Tequila ok but no my hat :P

Al the FWHM varied over the 4 hours I was at it, at times it dropped to about 2.2" but generally it hovered around 2.5" - 2.8" bit worse for the colour, so I await a trip to Cerro Tololo :thumbsup:

Mike
PS Rod, we should compare maxi's :D

[alpal]

OK Mike,
2.2 arc seconds - that's about the best I've ever had in Melbourne.
No wonder you got all that detail.
Forget Chile - it's too far away.
I thought we sometimes get sub arc second seeing at Siding Spring?
That would be the place on a good night.

cheers
Allan

[Stevec35]

Very nice Mike. Great detail and very natural looking.

Cheers

Steve

[strongmanmike]

Cheers Steve, done this galaxy a few times over the years and there is an improvement at least :)...actually a surprisingly difficult object to get to look right..with the right balance between the very bright core, dimmer arms and the faint outer halo.

Mike

[David Fitz-Henr]

Great image Mike; you've struck a good balance of colour and sharpening :thumbsup: I like that little galaxy in the lower right too; warm core with bluish arms.

"mini data" ... didn't I coin that term? ... perhaps something useful has come out of my musings after all :rofl:

[strongmanmike]

Thanks Dave, lately the weather, moon and life have meant that I haven’t managed to get out as often as I would like to.… so, I have made the most of the limited time by in fact utilising the major benefits of this scope and that is its aperture and speed, both of which contribute to getting decent images in a single night :thumbsup: In the end astroimaging is meant to be enjoyable and sometimes I just want an image with minimal fuss, not all images have to be ball breakers :)



I believe you did :question: so we have two new terms - doing a Sidonio or Sidonioing (ie many reprocesses) and now Mini Data So, I will likely be a proponent of both :lol:

Mike

[Geoff45]

Nice image Mike. M104 may be nice and bright, but it's not an easy one to process. I'm still working on mine from the star party.
Geoff

[astronobob]

Ripper Result there, diggin them background Gals also Mike, speshly them twin face-on-spirals right next to each other under the Hat, under the red star. colours looking very natural for them conditions too, nothing wrong with that :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Agreed, not an easy galaxy to process and at the same time maintain a natural look, has a huge dynamic range, the extended outer halo is very unforgiving.

I look forward to seeing yours, since I was there witch'ya ;)



Thanks Bob but hmmm? not sure which two galaxies you are referring to..?...where you describe just looks like a close pair of stars to me :shrug:

[astronobob]

No worries Mike, Here is a crop of a hubble image showing the two in the low left corner.
I have a spot for this M104 Galaxy as its the 1st galaxy I found with my 1st 8" mirror I ground & pollished back in the 90's :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Well I'll be damned.. look at what 0.05" seeing gives you :eyepop: that's about 40X better than I had :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Here's a Hubble Comparison (http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/156179093/original) :thumbsup:

Gotta get me to Chile.....into space would be better :P

[cybereye]

Very nice comparison!:thumbsup: As for Chile I'm not sure what the pizza situation is there. Space would be more of problem until Mr Branson sorts out Virgin Galactic for delivery... For me, I'd be happy to get out of Brisbane's 'burbs to image.... I'd still make my own pizza! :lol:

Cheers,
Mario

[strongmanmike]

Perhaps I could say to Angie.."darling, can I build my observatory in the Andes, you send me spending money aaaand we get together saaay a couple'a times a year in Canberra for the pizza (and other stuff :wink2:)?" That might be a good arangement :question: :shrug:

:lol:

[atalas]

Wonderful Mike!

[strongmanmike]

Glad ya think so big Louie :)

Mike

[Shiraz]

Very nice result that - but naah, suspect it could be even better with some deconvolution (on the linear data so you don't get worms!!!) to tighten up the globs

[strongmanmike]

:lol: ahhh, you may be right...but almost every deconed image I see looks deconed to me, yes it may look tighter but it is usually obvious why :shrug: and when I applied some to this data (taken in average conditions mind you) sadly the same was true :shrug:...so I left it ala natural :)

Mike

[strongmanmike]

Ok went back to the Lum stack and deconed the dust lane (using Astroart5) but not the stars and I have to say...this time, while being careful to keep it natural and not over sharpened looking, I'm actually am happy with the improved resolution the decon imparted to this famous feature...in fact quite stunned that I was able to get such detail in the dust lane under such ordinary conditions really...

I wasn't happy with any versions with the stars (and globular clusters) deconed though, can't get a satisfactory result after trying to de-ring the black ringed stars that result :question:...might have to work on that one :doh:

Same links in original post

This is fun, always learning...:thumbsup:

Mike

[gregbradley]

Yeah that looks amazing. So much detail. Just several years ago this would be a difficult to achieve result.

Greg.

[strongmanmike]

Wada ya mean :eyepop:...it's difficult now :eek:..I been at this for several hours now :scared: :bashcomp: :rofl:

Mike

[strongmanmike]

Here is a comparison between deconvolution applied to the dust lane with no deconvolution applied to the dust lane

Now to tighten the stars and keeping them..:question:...not looking tightened :sadeyes:....:scared: :lol:

Mike

[cosmophoton]

Nice image, and amazing comparison!

[strongmanmike]

Cheers Luiz :thumbsup:

Mike

[Shiraz]

well that sure was worth doing! :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Cheers Ray, yeah it was indeed...but every time I apply decon to the stars... I just don't like the result..never have :question:...I think I am either not doing it right or the decon in Astroart isn't great for use on stars...?

Gimmi good seeing instead anyday!

Mike

[mental4astro]

Beautiful image, Mike. So many wee GCs too - like fireflies around a big lamp.

[RB]

Oh wow, that's awesome Mike.

:thumbsup:

[marc4darkskies]

May the decon Force be with you young Padawan! Listen to the Force - it will guide you to your tight star destiny (without posting at 50% ;))

Gentle on the stars, heavy(er) on the neb & gal detail ... Layer & mask your decon results you must! Bad it is, doing one and not the other - the dark fuzzy side is strong - resist it you must!

PS: Have you looked at MY version? :D;):lol:

[strongmanmike]

Hey cheers big ears glad you liked it boys and yes a few fire flies there that's for sure Alexander :)



Yes...well I tried somthing like that and as I said the stars in all my results still "looked" sharpened and worked on :question:..while not as strongly as in Mr Saurons, and your M104 version is excellent, I have to say the stars and general details still "look" sharpened to me :shrug: and that is not a critisism, just a personal observation, it is still a perfectly legitimate choice..probably a fine line and I am likely just being a little fussy...:screwy: and should perhaps just do it, soft or sharp...soft or sharp? hmmm? :lol:

Mike