Omega Centauri (NGC5139)

[arkle]

Hi everyone.

Technical details – Canon 400D with 200mm lens, 50×30 second exposures @ ISO1600. Dark subtraction, flat field application, registration, stacking and processing in IRIS. Total exposure time 25 minutes.

Criticism welcome.

arkle

[peeb61]

Great shot Steve, you have nipped this one. Very nice indeed.

Paul

[Tilt]

That's nice, good resolution to the core.

Michael.

[Peter Ward]

Too cyan/yellow. Contrast a little high.

Remarkable resolution for a 200mm (!) lens. Core nicely resolved.

[TrevorW]

Great image I did the same one Monday night for a good image stacked with only 78 seconds total exposure and I know how low this one is, so difficult to capture. If you haven't already try taking out the colour then adjsut B & C.

[dugnsuz]

Fantastic image there Steve.
Is it a crop from a larger image?
Doug

[browndog]

The colour seems a little strange, but otherwise a good image. Excellent resolution of the core. Well done.:thumbsup:

[Matty P]

Apart from the colour this is a great image. Resolved right to the core.

Very well done. :)

[Hagar]

Very nicely resolved image. You need to keep an eye on the histogram as it appears you may have clipped the blue at least.
Colour balance could also do with some tweaking. Try a re-process bearing in mind the histogram.
Great job with the 200mm lense well done

[winensky]

Fantastic resolution! The hue seems to be shifted a little too yellow for this one but others have suggested fixes for this. Really good work.

[arkle]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will definitely try your advice.

arkle :)

[Peter Ward]

Something not quite right here....your sure you did not leave a zero off the focal length???

I've seen/taken enough images of omega to know even Canon L series glass doesn't give that sort of scale resolution.....:shrug:

[TrevorW]

Peter well done on you recent awards AS& T.

This image would no doubt have been cropped from the original and probably resized. The amount of capture data considering could well produce this image. IMO

Cheers

[arkle]

I'm sorry, it was a 200mm lens. It was on a 400D with the smaller-than-full-frame sensor so the effective focal length was 320mm. Maybe that would explain the resolution? My image is cropped to about 70%.

[Peter Ward]

The field and res still doesn't seem to make sense to me...

Here's what 4x the stated focal length (i.e. 1200mm) looks like:

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery22.html

[arkle]

Peter I see what you mean. That is very strange. I have no explanation for it. I took my image in April 2007. All my filenames are labelled 200mm. You're making me feel like I'm in trouble for something. Is it possible that I took the images at the prime focus of my Celestron C8 and forgot. I can't believe that, as my PF attempts are always terribly trailed. I don't know what to say.

arkle

[Peter Ward]

Hey, no sweat :)

I could just see some poor newbie wondering why his DSLR and 200mm made omega look soooo tiny.

Looks very like a C8 image now you mention it!