M16 in Ha

[Paul Haese]

This object I have tried imaging several times over the years and I never had the focal length to give it scale. It's been on my list for so long I wondered if I would ever get around to imaging it. Part of a much larger project this data is of the Eagle in Ha at 5.5 hours.

Click here (http://paulhaese.net/M16.html) to see larger resolution image.

[Atmos]

Very nice detail Paul, a lot better resolution and detail than what I got a month ago (still waiting on non windy clear skies!). Is there star elongation at ~25°? Or is that just my astigmatism?

[glend]

Nice Paul. Can I ask which Ha filter you used? I am thinking it looks like a 3nm given the total time. Just curious. Was that taken through the RC12?

[gregbradley]

Beautifully smooth, sharp as a tack the only minor negative is the stars are a bit eggy. That could be processed though. Overall an extremely impressive image.

Greg.

[Atmos]

So it's not just my eyes :) I mention it mostly because I wonder how much more detail could be extracted :) Whether it be some subs, all of them or slight registration error.
Really nice detail that dwarfs what I got a month ago :)

[Placidus]

Lovely detail in the pillars, Paul.

Minor observation: the background is so noise-free it has become posterized.

[RickS]

Nice detail from the AOX, Paul.

[Paul Haese]

Thanks guys.

Colin yes there are eggy stars. After the recent camera in an out I have eggy stars across the image diagonally. I have checked all the connections and I have recently put in a few shims to see if that sorts the problem. At this stage I have to wait to see what transpires. Like you I think it will lead to a bit more detail. Some more testing to find the problem.

Glen, I am using a 5nm Astrodon filter. Not a 3nm filter. And yes through the RC12.

Greg, this is with some star processing done. It's a real problem.

[Stevec35]

Apart from the slightly elongated stars that's very good Paul

Cheers

Steve

[Andy01]

Very clean & great detail Paul - should be a terrific image when you finish it!

[marc4darkskies]

That looks great Paul! Great detail and smoothness. :thumbsup:

One thing I've noticed though is that various browsers don't render B&W images properly. See the attached screenshots below. The one on the left is the Astrobin view and the one on the right is after download in PS. The downloaded version looks better presumably because the colour profile is managed properly in PS. I initially thought the view in Astrobin looked black clipped.

I find that changing the the colour profile of a B&W image to RGB allows a consistent rendering of B&W images in browsers.

[gregbradley]

Looking at the image again the bottom left is showing tilt but the overall image shows tracking errors as the stars all are elongated to the right a tad.

Greg.

[atalas]

Looking forward to seeing it finished Paul...looking good so far!I'm in the middle of the same project with the 10"so Im eager to see the difference in detail.

I understand your under dark skies with good seeing and using adaptive optics,but It will still give me a good idea If It's worth me moving to the 12"...cause I'll need to move to a high end mount as well.

[Paul Haese]

Thanks guys for the comments. I have now sorted the tilt problem. Imaging tonight with nearly perfect round stars after putting in two shims diagonally. Quite happy with the significantly sharper results that the image displayed in this thread. I will ditch this data and keep collecting the new stuff with the round stars.

That is an interesting observation Marcus. It did not occur to me that it would present differently.

Greg, just tilt from top right to bottom left only. No change in guide settings but the shims did make a difference.

Louie, I am keen to see how you go. I am running my 12 on a PMX. So a similar type of mount should be able to handle the load. What mount are you currently using Louie? I am considering going up to a 16" in the next 6 months. Not keen on shifting the PME into the dome and the PMX into the roll off roof. Lots of reworking and tuning would be needed.

[gregbradley]

That's very interesting that fixing the tilt handled the stars. I have spent a lot of time myself shimming my 2 scopes and camera and have noticed a few time I mistook odd star shapes to be tracking errors when it was tilt.

Greg.

[atalas]

[QUOTE

Louie, I am keen to see how you go. I am running my 12 on a PMX. So a similar type of mount should be able to handle the load. What mount are you currently using Louie? I am considering going up to a 16" in the next 6 months. Not keen on shifting the PME into the dome and the PMX into the roll off roof. Lots of reworking and tuning would be needed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Paul, at your site the 16" would be awesome....I'd say you'll have some fine tuning but you've got a head start on the GSO's now so, I'm sure you would get It up an running a lot sooner than the 12"....If you've got the transparency and the seeing do It!

I'm using an EQ8 Paul, and although I think It can handle a big load I find the dec backlash a bit of a pain at the longer focal lengths.

I need to move to a higher end mount to see better star sizes and to get automation happening.....when our dollar gets better.:)