M83

[Paul Haese]

This is an on going project I am working on. My goals here are to image the outer halo of this galaxy. That will take a fair bit of integration time to determine how far the halo actually extends. Added to this is the almost visible striations in the outer arms. And; any possible IFN that may exist. So I will report back once I have hopefully attained those goals.

This image contains 8.4 hours of integration time.

Click here (http://paulhaese.net/M83RC.html) for full resolution image.

[astroron]

Very nice Paul.:)
Look forward to the finished project. :)
Cheers.:thumbsup:

[RickS]

A great start, Paul. I'm also looking forward to the final result.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Stevec35]

I would be very happy with that Paul.

Cheers

Steve

[Atmos]

Looking really nice already Paul, looking forward to seeing what you can draw out with more integration time :)

[Shiraz]

that's a ripper Paul - already looks brilliant. The fine detail is excellent and you already have a fair bit of the halo.

[Placidus]

Superb!

You remain a master at producing beautifully high contrast images.

Best,
M

[glend]

Paul it is fabulous. Did you include some Ha to bring out those emission nebula in the arms? And what sort of sub times are you running if i might ask. I have problem with centre blow out in my images of M83 so i assume you have used layer masking, is that correct?

[Paul Haese]

Thanks guys for the comments. Much appreciated.



Thanks Ray. Very kind of you to say so. The fine detail is something I have brought from my back ground in planetary work. To my way of thinking images with fine detail always looks so much better than images with bolder looking high contrast detailing. I try to avoid using sharpening that causes the later.

I think the halo extends out a long way. I can see little knots of stars quite a way out but still in the halo that might indicate there is more to be seen signal wise. Time will tell I suppose but I enjoy this sort of challenge.



Thanks Glen. I have collected some Ha but at this stage have not added this to the image. I probably need a couple more hours of data yet to add it to the image. My subs are 15 minutes for colour and 20 minutes for luminance, 30 minutes for Ha.

I will have to do some short subs to remove the blown centre. It get pretty well blown in a few minutes. It has a very bright core.

[alpal]

Wow Paul,
that's got to be one of the best ever posted of M83 on Ice in Space.
It's got so much detail & even the 2 little galaxies to the right are clearly shown.

cheers
Allan

[deeplook]

Hi Paul,

thats a very nice project! The image looks already great, looking forward for the final version!

Markus

[Peter Ward]

This image is doing my head in...

The outer field stars are slightly soft, but beautifully symmetrical

Yet many inner galaxy stars have slightly eggy profiles (2-8 o'clock) with tighter profiles and show fainter stars compared to the those elsewhere in the image.

I have no idea how you do it! :shrug: but it makes a stand-out M83 for sure :thumbsup:

[h0ughy]

awesome - on a 48" monitor at full res - i am having a homer moment... :)_

[astronobob]

Excellent - another 'in the making' mighty deep one coming from the master of integration time :P

[Paul Haese]

Thanks Markus, David and Bob for your comments.



I think Eric Benson's image of this target is about the best here. His image scale is huge with the image being taken on the 20" at Arkaroola in SA. I was pleased to see my colour natively came out very similarly to his.





Thanks Peter, some of the lum subs at present have slightly eggy stars. With some of the sharpening runs I did the size of the stars are reduced enough to make the star shapes evident around the galaxy itself.

As you know quality data to start with helps. The AOX is the clincher in this deal as you know. It helps to give good sharp data to about two orders of magnitude of seeing on the Pickering scale.

[Flugel88]

Amazing stuff Paul for only 8.4 hours can't wait to see what it looks like once you have put more data.

The core looks very nice and under exposed masterful processing.

[Peter Ward]

They are good....but not that good.

...100x better...nah....but 2x maybe :)

[alpal]

Hi Paul,
I hadn't seen his image before:
http://www.faintgalaxy.com/ngc5236_full.htm

He may have gone a little deeper?
You've done well to go up against a Planewave CDK20, EFL = 3420 mm.

cheers
Allan

[Andy01]

I'm not usually much of a galaxy guy but to me that's a beautiful image Paul - very well done !

[clive milne]

Wow, that is impressive..
Are you imaging from Arkaroola now Paul?

[clive milne]

I imagine on the strength of that incredible image, GSO could probably look forward to a few more sales in the near future..
Planewave, et al, must be looking over their shoulder with some degree of concern.

[rustigsmed]

fantastic image paul, I had wondered about how far the halo extends also, so I'm glad to see you going for a deep image on this one. colour and galaxy look fantastic on full res :thumbsup:

russ

[gregbradley]

That's a very nice M83 Paul. Love the stars, great colour and roundness. Good detail in the arms as well.

Greg.

[Stefan12]

Stunning clarity in this image Paul! I use a GSO RC10'' and I compared your M83 image to my one. There's no comparison. Your one is just so much clearer. You must have some good seeing where you are in Australia. I'm in the lower North Island of New Zealand and from my experience, our atmospheric seeing is usually anything but good.

[Peter Ward]

I took the liberty of matching Paul's image to an image from a 20"CDK based at Arkaroola.

You can compare the two at this mouse-over link (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/roll/m83comp.html)

[Paul Haese]

Thanks Michael, Andy, Russell and Greg for your comments. Much appreciated.



Hmm perhaps I should not have used Magnitude. ;). The way I look at it in the seeing I get its like going from 5/10 to 7/10. I doubt it is measureable but it is definitely sharper.



I don't actually remember what Eric's integration time was on this target but given the aperture, his image would most likely be deeper.




Thanks Clive, no not imaging from Arkaroola, still from near the coast of SA. My system is not stable enough to park it up there, it's a long drive if something goes wrong.



Yes I imagine my images provide an idea of what is capable with that size scope, albeit I have spent a lot of time fine tuning the system and been pretty particular about collimation. And; there is always minor issues to eliminate. The question then arises as to how much tinkering one is prepared to undertake. I wonder myself whether the average punter would be bothered and just be happy to pay the extra bucks for a better scope. These scopes certainly represent good value for dollars spent. I'll leave it up to others to decide if the scopes are real rivals. :)



I do have very good seeing at Clayton on average. The odd night produces poor seeing but most nights the seeing is very high quality. This year the seeing has been pretty good with what appears to be the onset of another possible drought.



That pretty well demonstrates how much better another 8" of aperture in good seeing can do. Eric's image is so much sharper than mine, well at least to my eyes. Still I am pretty happy with what my budget scope can produce.

[niko]

Paul,

I don't know why I do it it myself!

I see a Haese post, I know what's going to be there when I click - a frickin' awesome image - ANOTHER ONE, that just makes me want to give it all away.

I'm not sure I know enough swear words to have leave my mouth to get my images anywhere even remotely like this!!!!

But seriously - awesome image - again, and, in fact, you inspire me to go back out there curse all the problems and press on!

well done mate

niko

[SkyViking]

Paul, a superb image of this spectacular galaxy, really nice. Great colours and in addition to the large halo lots of faint background galaxies too.
As Peter mentioned, the outer areas seem softer than the centre, so you could possibly process so as to get the same nice resolution for the entire image as you've clearly achieved in the galaxy itself?
I must get around to make a serious effort on this galaxy some day...

[ericwbenson]

Hi Paul,

Well done, you should be very pleased with those results. I for one fully appreciate the amount of background legwork and logistics it takes to get multiple hours of good data that can be fully stretched to the sky limit, especially from a remote site!

Now looking at the current image on my site linked above I realized how bland it appears!!! I had spruced up the color for that image back in Jan 2015 but must have forgotten to update the webpage :ashamed:

Oh well, fixed it now.

Cheers,
EB

[alpal]

Eric states on the link:
Subimages L: 11 x 900 sec (2.75 hrs),
Subimages RGB: 9/11/11 x 900 sec (2.25/2.75/2.75 hrs)

So that's 11 hours as opposed to your 8.2 hours.

You have a 12" with 2438 focal length.
Eric has a 20" at 3420 focal length.

I did some quick maths which may be wrong.
I estimate Eric has twice the depth.

I notice Eric has posted here - good one.

cheers
Allan

[Ryderscope]

Nice one Paul. A great benchmark to aspire to.

[clive milne]

Mike... any chance of adding this to the IIS lexicon?

http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_eatingpopcorn.gif

[Paul Haese]

Thanks guys for the comments.


Rolf the softness is due to not using selective sharpening of the outer areas.



Here you go Mister C, here is a crop of a luminance Fit file. They all look like this. Feel free to accuse me of theft a little further if you like. Please note the diffraction spikes etc. Take a look through all my images in my gallery and see how sharp they are for the RC12 gear. My site has good seeing and I am using an AOX. I used decon in the processing and then masked the galaxy into the main lum master. That master was then sharpened further via masking. That master is then used as my luminance layer into my RGB data set in photoshop. I am highly insulted that you have suggested I used Eric's data. Feel free to apologise any time you like!!! :mad2:

[Peter.M]

Lol, that's a really good way to have a discussion on a forum. Accuse someone of plagiarising someone elses work, then when the person provides evidence in the contrary you decide you aren't going to respond. Next time im down at Pauls watching the scope gather data for this image, or while im watching him stack the .fits maybe we could broadcast it on youtube to appease some nobody with 4 posts to his name.

[Paul Haese]

LOL you are a funny little troll. So I cloned out one of the diffractions spikes on one star and not the other. :rofl::rofl:

The RGB crop below show the diffraction spike there. If you care to have a good look. If you stretch the lum data the spike is there too.

It's clearly obvious that this data set it mine. If you look at the data sets in the comparison that Peter Ward made you can clearly see Eric's data is sharper than mine.

So you make an accusation without any evidence and then you bugger off into oblivion, any time you want to have a full look at the fits files you can and so too can anyone here. I am not a cheat nor a thief. I have been a member on this site for years and have a whole body of work that is evidence of my integrity and you come along with your 6 or so posts and try to accuse me of cheating.

[Paul Haese]

Just to further add. Here is a crop of the summed lum data. Feel free to keep barking up the wrong tree mate. That is just with the decon done and not further sharpened in photoshop. If you like I can make an account on drop box and supply the summed Fits too. I have nothing to hide at all.

[ericwbenson]

To MisterC,
Stop this non-sense please. If I had a beef with Paul I would pick up the phone and talk to him directly, like we do every so often.

To everyone else,
Ignore the above opinion and/or analysis, I don't buy it, I don't think you should either.

EB

[Rex]

Another fantastic image Paul. I can't wait to see the next instalment! That halo is already showing.

[graham.hobart]

Great image Paul- looks grand already.
as for the previous few comments :shrug:as they say in text speak-WTF?
Keep that RC 12 humming
Cheers
Graham

[alpal]

I don't agree with you - whoever you are.
The point spread function of stars cannot be called the same.
What is your evidence of that?

Also - a 12" can trump a 20" if the seeing is better & adaptive optics are used.

You are forgiven for trying to ruin a really good thread.

[Peter Ward]

When was the last time you used a 20" scope?

Having first hand experience with an Alluna RC20 (no-AO) to my RC16 (AO) and even more so AP 305mm AO).....sorry... I disagree

Close...but it can't (OK I concede crappy optics to boot :) ) Planewave CDK's are anything but.

There is enough BS here already (without mis-information)

[stevous67]

I'm just wondering what happened to the P Ward comparison of the Alluna Vs the Hubble image of the Eta Carina close up?

I think its worthy of this conversation? But where did it go?

[Peter Ward]

Why? .....is it not on the server? :shrug:

[stevous67]

No it is not Peter, and not on your started post list?

It would be intersting to include that comparison on this off thread topic comparing apperture differences.

[alpal]

Dear Peter,
I have looked at Jupiter & Saturn through a
classical Cassegrain f/13.3 20" scope manufactured by Carl Zeiss at
the Auckland Observatory.
Amazing view but it wasn't twice as good as a Celestron C11 that was there outside the observatory.

Dawes limit tells me that a 12" telescope has 0.38 arc seconds of resolution.
A 20" scope has 0.23 arc seconds of resolution.

If you were trying to split a double star only one arc seconds apart -
in excellent one arc seconds seeing - the results would be the same -
neither scope could do it.

The larger scope has more light collecting power - so it goes deeper given the same time.

cheers
Allan

[clive milne]

Paul, any question of impropriety would be easily resolved if you uploaded the original files to drop box ---all of them--- (assuming they were in a format that included the appropriate image origin meta data) along with the processing work flow.

Anything less would be fuel to the fire, imho)
It is not a trivial accusation that has been levelled at you, after all.

What better way to set the record straight?

[Peter Ward]

This needs a whole new thread to discuss properly...but in a nutshell I disagree.

The higher flux and more stable focal-plane position from a large aperture
invariably delivers sharper/deeper images.

If you want to start a new thread..sure...happy to discuss further.

[Peter Ward]

Que?? Just clicked on the link

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery376.html

It's still there...suggest you contact your ISP.

[alpal]

Dear Peter,
Let's leave the discussion here for now.

I noticed you ignored the reference to Dawes limit?
That's the real point of what I wrote.

When you see what Rolf Olsen achieved with a humble 10" f5 Newt:
http://www.rolfolsenastrophotography.com/Astrophotography/Centaurus-A-Extreme-Deep-Field/i-6RGLbJp

it's more about integration time than how large the aperture of your telescope.
The larger aperture is not giving more resolution unless you're in the Atacama desert in Chile.

cheers
Allan

[Peter Ward]

I agree.

"Only fraud and falsehood dread inspection. Truth invites it"

[gregbradley]

Wow, I am a bit nonplussed by this thread. A prominent previous Malin award winner who routinely puts out high end images with superb resolution has accusations that he used someone else's data. He also has 2 remote observatories setup in an area with excellent seeing.

I think the Moderators should've stepped in here earlier as we obviously have a troll that has snuck in who is trying to invalidate Paul's excellent continuous work.

I don't believe Paul needs to do a thing to respond here. This image is totally in line with his previous work which is routinely sharper than what I have gotten in the past with my CDK17.

Moderators???

Greg.

[clive milne]

I understand what you are saying Greg, but with all due respect
I don't believe Paul should be denied the opportunity to respond with real
data to erase any doubt (should he choose to) and silence the critics.

It would be an interesting insight into master class processing at the least.

[Paul Haese]

I have uploaded my masters on drop box and 1 tiff of the decon lum master.

This is how I did this roughly.

I did a decon in CCDstack2. I used positive constraint with 100 interations with a matrix radius of 4, sharpen count of 2, biases subdivision of 4 and PSF fit to Moffat checked. Then I saved that decon image as a tiff and masked the galaxy into a non decon lum image in photoshop.

Next I did another mask and selectively sharpened the dust lanes etc with a plugin called Image Magic. Once I did that I did another mask and did some contrast control of the brighter sections and around the dust lanes.

I added this to the RGB data set and did final colour and saturation.

I just want to say that this is just outrageous to be accused of this, I am totally shocked. So being a well established member of the astronomical community with a reputation for producing sharp images is not enough to give me credit. I am totally disgusted. If I was always producing fuzzy images and then suddenly produced a really sharp image it would be fair enough to question my image but this is not the case.

Link to drop box below

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hb9fplwkrkthixk/AAAZDNnmgcVXiXt3vg4MGOWwa?dl=0

Please let me know if you cannot open the link, this is my first time using drop box and do not know if anyone access it.

[Paul Haese]

Just in case people cannot open the folder link. I think this allows people to open the link and download the file.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s765u339adqwshf/Sum%20M83%20Deconvolved%20320%20Lum %20scaled.TIFF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdzzjv1re24nxpr/Sum%20M83%20320%20Lum.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/np6amt8u0i5fcqx/Median%20M83%2060%20red.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gblioskg3ycv6ks/Median%20M83%2060%20green.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkj8maf7hm4wktu/Median%20M83%2060%20Blue.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrsnm7dtm2xjn3z/M83%20RGB%20w%20artificial%20lum.TI FF?dl=0

[Paul Haese]

Can you try now Ray? I have allowed anyone with the links to open the files.

[Shiraz]

It is still asking me to sign in - I have never used drop box either, so maybe am doing something wrong

[alpal]

There has been jealousy I've noted that Paul has made outstanding pictures from his GSO scope.
In this case he's gone head to head with a scope costing US$ 32,500
https://www.optcorp.com/pi-cdk20-20inch-cdk-corrected-dall-kirkham-carbon-fiber-truss-telescope.html
using a GSO scope costing only EUR 3,500.
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes-ota/ritchey-chretien/gso-ritchey-chretien-12-f-8-optical-tube-carbon-fibre-tube
which is only 1/8th the price.

Paul has done well without spending a fortune.
I actually had a GSO 10" f4 Newt. mirror that I had to return as faulty once so GSO does seem to be bit of a hit & miss affair.
In this case Paul got a top RC mirror.
I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

cheers
Allan

[Paul Haese]

Hmmm, I have allowed anyone with the links to view either the folder or the images. I don't know either. I have only ever downloaded images from drop box in collaboration with others. If someone know they can certainly inform me.

[Paul Haese]

Thanks Allan for the support.

[Paul Haese]

Thanks Greg for the support.

[Paul Haese]

The links are now open. I did a test myself logged out and each opens. Feel free to download.

[Shiraz]

The basis for the accusation is complete hogwash.

I just had a look at Gendler's image of the same thing and, no surprises, there is the same reddish linear feature as in Paul's data - right in the same place near the orange star in the close pair. Granted it looks a little like it could be carryover from the diffraction pattern in the Arkaroola image, but Gendler's image shows that it is a separate feature that was hidden under a diffraction spike in Eric's image. Since the linear feature was hidden in Eric's image, it would have been impossible for Paul to remove the overlaying diffraction spike to reveal it - and yet it is there in his data. The fact that the linear feature is present in Paul's data confirms that he did not poach Eric's image. Thus, the single bit of evidence that has been presented, by anyone, to suggest that there has been cheating, actually shows that there has been no cheating. This could have easily been determined by the accuser prior to posting, but there was obviously an agenda underlying this whole saga and honourable behaviour was not part of it.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0707/m83_gendler_big.jpg

[Peter.M]

So just so were aware, what we are actually saying here is that Paul not only did not plagiarize any work, but he also discovered a jet in M83! What a turn around.

[stevous67]

Sorry Peter, my ISP is solid, I referred to your IIS post that was deleted (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/search.php?searchid=3731951), not your atscope page [which I never visit directly].

So your image and comparison (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery376.html) highlights an honest result of achieving as good an image from a 16" as opposed to a 32" (http://www.chart32.de/images/phocagallery/Observatory/telescope/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_chart32_2015.jpg) [Chart32 link here (http://www.chart32.de/images/objects/nebulae/NGC3372/EtaCar_NB_c75.jpg)], and as you have directly shown, nearly as good as a space based 2m telescope.

In regard to the Haese raw data being made available, I agree that is also hog wash, as everyone has different processing abilities. One could easily, and quite incorrectly, eventuate to a lousy processing result and conclude the Raw doesnt match the final result.

Steve

[clive milne]

Cool your jets Peter... (sorry just had to say that)
There are a large number of background galaxies in the area.

fwiw) Here's a montage assembled from Hubble & Subaru data

http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M83-New-HST-ESO-LL.html

[Rigel003]

Hi Paul. I've just caught up with this. That's a magnificent image. Can't believe some of the discussion in this thread.

[clive milne]

Steve, with all due respect
The point of putting the raw files up is that they will have image origin meta data attached, which should end any argument without the possibility of misinterpretation.
Guilt or innocence doesn't alter the fact that it is a bad situation to be in. (As the saying goes - some of it sticks). I know if I was facing allegations of plagiarism (even implicitly) I wouldn't even wait for it to be suggested... my raw files would be public domain in a heart beat. (Kudos to Paul for doing so)

There is a silver lining to all this... Paul get's the opportunity to demonstrate that his results are literally unbelievable.. (to some)

Actually, there is a second silver lining to this, and that is to underscore the value of storing (all of your) data in a format which is recognised by professional scientists. Your data then becomes unique, forensically useful documents. If the calibration is traceable, the data then becomes THE standard by which reality (or some portion of it) is defined.

[ericwbenson]

Again, I don't think Paul has anything to prove here. The feature in question is a red herring. Those who want to believe in deception will not be swayed, but it is their loss to not be able to appreciate the goodness present here. Can we just put this one to bed.

EB

[RickS]

Metadata is trivially easy to edit. I can't see that the raw files would prove anything unless they've been time stamped and digitally signed by a trusted authority.

We've all seen Paul's work over a number of years. IMO he hasn't any need to prove himself.

Cheers,
Rick.

[multiweb]

+1 Superb photo. Paul, you don't need to answer to anybody, especially a troll with a few posts. Don't take the bait.

[graham.hobart]

I actually cannot believe that this is even got this far. Aren't we supposed to be a community?
Trolls have an agenda that is at odds with the spirit of this site and he or she should have been carpeted quickly.
The follow on discussion defies belief as well.
Disappointed.
Graham

[atalas]

Hi Paul

Terrific work dude!the troll? as insulting as It is not only to you but to the rest of us here on IIS....well ,you've got to lough at the little man!

I've watched you grow into a great deepsky astrophotography over the last few years so kudos to you mate!

[stevous67]

How ridiculous. Unless you have the same, or better processing skills, this a waste of time. Anyone without the said expertise should not waste time to review the data as RAW data never resembles the final artwork.

Some of the new posts to this thread look more like fuel to a witch hunt.

I feel the best approach is to ignore threads with questionable results, as these will past from the first page quickly when no comments are posted.

Steve

[clive milne]

Wow... this forum is disappointing.
Advocate the application of scientific method before employing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' - and get flayed,

Critical thinking fail!

[troypiggo]

G'day Paul,

It's horrible to be accused of fabricating data. I'm still getting reminders of this post (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=91980&highlight=transit) of mine from a few years ago. In particular this image (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=116916) . :rofl:



Sorry - just trying to make some light of a pretty heavy thread. :)

[Exfso]

OMG, this guy obviously is in the land of the fairies. I have known Paul for years, and there is simply no way he would even consider copying any one's work. Me thinks he is treading on very thin ice, obviously does not realise that Paul is amongst other things a "legal eagle", so he may find himself in more strife than he has bargained for.:eyepop:

[graham.hobart]

With all due respect Clive, if this person had not popped up and trolled this thread, no one would be questioning the veracity of Paul's work. We have all seen and followed the development of a 2014 Malin award winner on this site. Each picture. Each photon.
Why now?
:shrug:

[Retrograde]

Wow - very disappointing that one of the forum's premier astrophotographers has been attacked in this way by someone with zero credibility. It's not only Paul's large folio of work but also his generous and detailed technical advice to those learning the craft that show anyone paying attention that he has no questions to answer here.

Another fine image Paul.
I don't often comment on many of the superlative images by the top photographers here as they are so far above my abilities and understanding that I rarely have anything non-superficial to say about them. Each one is still viewed and well appreciated however.

[codemonkey]

lol. Wow. Did not expect this thread to take such a turn, how absurd.

Awesome work, as usual, Paul. Don't fear, no one's taking that clown seriously and you have nothing to prove.

[Paul Haese]

I have spent some time thinking about what has transpired in this thread and want to say that whilst I am still not happy with the person making the accusation, I am humbled and grateful for the support people have shown towards me not only in this thread but via PM and emails. I want to thank people for the support that have shown me.

Whilst I agree that I should not have to show my data to anyone or how I go about processing my images; the only real way to discredit an accusation is by providing evidence that you are legitimate, no matter what your standing.

So thanks once again for the support and I will start another thread on this image once I have collected another 20 hours worth of data.

[marc4darkskies]

Couldn't agree more!

No need to prove anything Paul - a very fine image indeed! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[clive milne]

Graham... my grievance, well, that may be too strong a word,
so let's just say, the source of my 'irritation' if I was to be fair, is not specifically in respect to what is being discussed in this thread, it's just brought it to a head.
Before I go on, let me diffuse this a little by directing your attention to a couple of other threads (now locked) that won't illicit the same degree of emotive response, but will still make my point. If you do a search on this forum with the key words 'Moon hoax' or 'Moon landing conspiracy' or UFO (over Melbourne?)- I can't recall exactly... The nub of argument should be fairly obvious..

Take the moon landing hoax for example... My position on this is that I have yet to see any evidence that discredits NASA's account, so I assume it is more or less accurate.. That being said, the arguments (or more succinctly) the style of arguments used by 95% of the IIS members who participated in the discussions can only be described as logical fallacies. (and that's sugar coating it)
If a forum which is ostensibly for people with an appreciation for scientific endeavour, and, given a topic with such an incredible weight of proof, chooses to rely on, (almost to a man) invalid arguments to discredit opposition, then forgive me if I express frustration, even if I don't disagree with the conclusion in the first place. Science cannot be defended by the abdication of logic in order to score points in a debate.

The moon landing hoax thread is an example which basically consisted of page after page of rebuttal via:

I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It has been discussed extensively, nobody should discuss it anymore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition

Evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Circular reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Moral high ground attitude - in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground

Assuming something which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who questions the claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

No true Scotsman would do such a thing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Thought terminating cliche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

Information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_abusive

An assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

An assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment

An argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery

An argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity

An argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

An argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite

A premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

An argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

A proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmental_language

Claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

Confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy

Even if I have no dog in the race, when I see tactics like these used, it gets under my skin... probably more so because the majority of people are blind to it.

It is probably the reason why I now rarely participate in this forum.

[clive milne]

Exactly my point.

[avandonk]

As Carl Sagan said a long time ago 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence'

Paul has been producing very good images for a long time and I do not believe for one second he would do what an anonymous detractor has said.

Paul must be a PS wizard to get rid of the diffraction spikes and the dark haloes around the stars due to overcorrection in the 'other image' all with 8 bit data!

Mud can stick. The accuser should put up or shut up.

Bert

[avandonk]

I took the liberty of making an animated gif. Here 5MB.

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2016_05/PH.gif


What this really shows is how a 12" can perform in Paul's hands compared to a 20". SFA!

I made the other image the same brightness as Pauls with RegiStar.

Paul's image has the diffraction spikes at 45 degrees.

Bert

[Shiraz]

can't disagree that some the arguments may have been lacking, but maybe there is an underlying basis for the gut reactions - there never was any credible evidence of wrongdoing:
1.Peter's difficulty with the variation in star resolution and shape was explained perfectly well by Paul,
2. Ric's very aggressive contention that the FWHM were the same in both images was clearly not the case by simple inspection of the images in Peter's cleverly scaled overlay - in any case, it is not surprising that two images of the same object, by experienced practitioners, should look much the same (but they were certainly not identical, as Bert has just demonstrated very clearly),
3. Ric's contention that a diffraction spike had mistakenly been left in the copied image was troubling at face value, but was easily shown to be just plain wrong.

As far as I can see, that left absolutely no case to answer. The question then became whether Paul should release his valuable and hard won data to all and sundry for no reason at all. And for that matter should anyone else in such a position be expected to do so? I don't think that it is reasonable that we should necessarily respond to all such accusations and suspect that many of the posts were expressing similar sentiments. After all, it is very easy for a troll to make spurious accusations and then disappear without facing any consequences. Does that make sense? Regards Ray

[clive milne]

Ray, that is reasoned and fair, I do understand.

Anyway... my spare day at the keyboard has come to an end.
</Advocatus Diaboli>

best
~c

[andyc]

Just came across this thread... first off, yet another superb image Paul, well done :thumbsup: Secondly, alongside many others here who have seen ample of your magnificent work over a number of years, I think it is extremely disappointing that some nobody troll was able to make those accusations (notwithstanding that mods can't be everywhere at once). While I applaud you for putting up the raw data, it should've been completely unnecessary, and I hope the troll in question has their posting rights revoked. They were scurrilously false accusations :mad2:

Your reputation as one of the top imagers on the forum remains unblemished. I hope you don't take the actions of one stupid little #$*@ as representative of people here.

Aperture is not the only thing that goes into making a great deep sky image - a hell of a lot of skill, effort and processing nous as well as good conditions also contribute...

[alpal]

Post removed by the author - me.

cheers
Allan

[gvanhau]

Very nice image

As of your description of processing steps, it seems a lot of work...but well inverted.

Geert

[Regulus]

A beautiful result Paul.

Re: the other stuff - (Dropbox isn't asking me to log in, but it obviously recognises me as a user.)
As for the Troll, he has had his fix by offending you and getting discussion going. I don't quite understand the psychology of trolls, but I do get that they are impaired emotionally.

Anyhoo mate, another brilliant photo.

Trev

[trent_julie]

Excellent as usual Paul!

Trent