Monoceros Gems.

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Hi,

I’ve been concentrating on some of the gems in Monoceros, so I’m posting them in one post.
IC 447 is the final of a progression of images. See previous.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=177532
It has more faint outlying nebulosity showing, and isn’t quite as noisy.
This is a total 93 x 2 minute subs, ISO 6400.

NGC 2170 is faint, quite a challenge to get anything out of the data. I think it looks like an angler fish?
62 x 2 minute subs, ISO 6400.
The sky was bright with dust, so the subs were washed out a little, might try longer subs at ISO 1600.
Don’t Know whether this will make any difference?
IC 2177 was the big surprise!
This is only 32 x 2minute subs at ISO 6400 and happy with the result from my unmodded 1100D.
Quite a lot HA coming through, I tried imaging it before and really didn’t get anything worth processing.
8” F/4 astrograph , baader type 3 coma corrector,. HEQ Pro 5 mount, orion mini guider.
Camera.
Unmodded Cannon 1100D plus cooler box. All images tacked in Deep Sky Stacker .Processed in Photoshop Cs2..

Cheers,

Justin.

[strongmanmike]

Three good images Justin, nice colours and with plenty of animals to be seen :P I see the Angler fish too :thumbsup:

I think it is really only your star shapes (and I assume the work you do on'em to fix'em) that are holding back your results from being corkers :shrug: I think you have explained before but what's going on here exactly?

Not that it matters as they are still good images worthy of display :thumbsup:

Mike

[Shiraz]

very pretty images Justin - and a self portrait to boot :lol:

[RickS]

Yep, nice pics Justin!

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Thanks for your input Mike!:thumbsup:

Stars always seem to be my nemesis!:shrug:

I've supplied a single sub to show what I'm usually dealing with.
The stars are blocky and I think it's to do with pushing the limits with weight on Heq Pro 5 mount, it's actually guiding quite well with PHD showing the Osc index 0.3 and RMS 0.12 or lower, with guiding duration set to 1.5 to 2 seconds.
But the extra weight of the cooler box and counter balancing creates more torque.
I know when I run with out the cooler I get better star shapes.
Used have flexure but that's pretty well fixed, only minor deflection depending where the scope is pointing.
As far as processing goes, I usually do basic levels photo shop- select magic wand - select a suitable star - then similar - Select modify expand 5 to 7 pixels.
I then use filter Gaussian blur 1.5 to 1.7 pixels - filter other minimum one pixel then filter noise median one pixel.
This usually helps with the star shapes and I might do it several times during processing to try and keep the stars under control.

Ill do a repro on IC 2177 and see if I can fix those stars.



Thanks Ray!:thumbsup:

Handsome fella aren't I!!:D

Cheers,

Justin.

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Thanks Rick!:thumbsup:

Cheers,

Justin.

[Paul Haese]

Colour in all your images are good Justin. Detail is ok too.

I think doing longer subs will help for sure. 2 minutes at 6400 is not going to draw much signal in. If you could manage 5-10 minutes you will get better results for sure. It will reduce the need to stretch hard too. Just by way of example I was doing 20 minute subs in LRGB for this object (though in monochrome and with a cooled camera). There is a difference in diameter you have here that has to be considered too which will give you the edge in light gathering but I think 10 minutes or around that figure would give you equivalent light gathering results and a greater resolution that I got with the FSQ. Like you I found NGC2170 to be very faint. I plan on doing a lot more integration time on this next year to improve the quality of the image I have now.

[Ross G]

Great looking photos Justin.

That is a beautiful part of the sky.

Ross.

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Thanks for your input Paul!:thumbsup:

I need to do more experimenting, I used to run 8 to 10 minute subs at ISO 800 and 5 minute subs at 1600. I found that 2 minute subs at 6400 was showing more faint detail.

The reason I've stuck with this is the number of subs I can take, which helps overcome to some degree the extra noise. It also helps ruined subs from satellites, poor seeing and tracking errors having so many subs to play with.

Now having said this, it's just from my observation and not proven.

If any you more experienced chaps have an idea for setting up an experiment for this it would be appreciated.

Hey Ray !!( Shiraz ) what about it :question:
You are very good at this, any idea's.

I know there's no real point taking subs with the same exposure times at different ISO ratings.



Thanks Ross!:thumbsup:

Hope to see some more of your images soon.

Cheers,

Justin.

[nebulosity.]

Nice set of images Justin!

The stars in the single sub look pretty good. Not sure if is any help but when I am trying to dig deep in my images I remove the stars in StarTools before doing anything to serious, and then when the back ground is done I put them back.

Cheers
Jo

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Thanks Jo!

I'll check that out.

Cheers,

Justin.