4 hours, and 37 Frames of the Rosette

[leon]

Hi Guys,well last night was certainly interesting, as for the first time I had decided to continue imaging from where I had left off the night before. :rolleyes:

I had heard that others do this on a regular bases, so why not give this a go, I thought.

Previously I had taken 20 frames of the Rosette which I posted yesterday, the mount was shut down, and all stayed as it was until last night, mind you I had never tried this before. :whistle:

Anyway I fired it up again, asked Gemini to do a warm restart, meaning that it would use the previous nights information, and continue from there.

After it had done its normal pre checks it asked, "well what do you want me to do", (well not really in those terms,) so I entered in NGC 2237, as I had done the previous night, and away it went.

I was absolutely gob smacked when it landed on the exact guide star from the previous night, :eyepop: so I just calibrated PHD again, on that star, and it imaged the exact same spot for the rest of the night.

So this is collection of two nights imaging combined into one, 20 from the earlier run, and 17 more from last night.

The image you now see consists of, 37 sub frames @ 7 mins @ 400 ISO, with the Tak, and Modded 5D, on the G11, auto guided, flats and ICNR, and processed in Image Plus, and CS2.

The first image is with the added 17 frames, (making 37 sub frames) and the second is the one i posted with 20 frames

Please feel free to comment either way, hope it is to your liking. :)

Leon :thumbsup:

[mill]

Leon the first pic has a lot more defenition now and looks heaps better :eyepop:

Now only longer exposures will get you further and will give even better results.
All in all a very good result mate :)

[Hagar]

Hi Leon, For an extra 2hrs worth of effort I see very little overall gain in the image. Flicking between the two images reveals a little extra detail in the outer sheath and a small gain in signal but the question you have to ask yourself is, "is it worth the extra effort?" For me the answer would have been No. Some small changes in processing may well have made the differences, who knows.
Perhaps the answer lies in the duration of the subs. Longer subs may look deeper and resolve more but you would have to weigh that up against skyglow noise and camera capture noise.

The conumdrum we all face. When is enough, enough?

Nice image though, Leon. Well done.

[renormalised]

Leon's conversation with the Gemini mount...

Leon: " Can you start with a warm restart??"

Mount: " Well what do you want me to do??"

Leon: "Start off from where we left off last night"

Mount: "Oops, I've forgot:P"

Leon: "Forgot what??!!"

Mount: "Last night....can't remember"

Leon: "You what?!!!....here read this..."

Mount: "Can't...don't have any eyes:P"

Leon: "Well can you FEEL this!!"....zap...240v in the autoguider port...

Mount: "OUCH!!!....Ahhh, now I remember!!!:eyepop::D"

:P:P

[Lester]

Top image Leon. Either longer exposures or extra processing, or both, may help; but heck they are both good.

[mill]

I had the jpg in CS4 and there is a lot more data in it.
But a jpg this size cant be processed properly :(
I think that with more processing you can get a lot more out of it Leon.

[renormalised]

BTW...nice piccie, Leon:)

[Quark]

Nice work there Leon,

However I prefer the second image with less data, both are very nice but I think the second looks, sort of more subtle, it really is a personal thing.

I would be happy to produce something half as good as either of them.

Regards:thumbsup:
Trevor

[leon]

Thanks Guys, I appreciate your comments.

Doug I tend to agree, there was a lot of effort for little gain, but it was worth the experiment for the comparison side of things, anyway I am happy with either shot, and as you said Doug, maybe longer subs, but than there is the LP and extra capture noise to consider.:shrug:

(renormalised,) you really crack me up, that is so funny, :lol: I can just see myself doing that too :whistle:

Anyway i thought I would give this a go, it worked, and there will be many more objects to try this procedure on.

As suggested, by some, may be it is time to look at the SBIG site :whistle:or make a fridge like Bert :shrug:

Thanks again.

Leon :thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

Hi Leon,

The second image has a gradient in it where the right hand side has a gradient to it whereas the first image does not. (gradient - background is uneven in lightness).

This is costing you contrast in the second image and is probably suppressing the data.

There is a good free tutorial on handling gradients at Wade Observatory using channels and the gradient tool in Photoshop. Or even better Gradient Xterminator by Russell Croman (free trial) makes these gradients a thing of the past.

So don't assume it wasn't worth it. Longer exposures in my experience mean less noise and easier processing. Lack of exposure severely limits your ability to extract the signal without a lot of noise.

Just as a comment you can even get gradients imaging from a dark site. A bit of cloud, the moon, a bit of glow from your laptop, headlights, your torch etc etc.

And yes it is a good image.

Greg.

[leon]

Many thanks Greg, I admit I am not the worlds best processor, much to learn, but am slowly getting there, with much help from all you good people here.

I will certainly take your suggestions on board, thank you.

leon

[gregbradley]

Oh by the way here is my technique for adding images later on;

1. I take a focus shot of the image.

2. I open an image from the night before and size it to match the focus shot (control 1, 2 , 3 ,4 etc one of them makes it the same size).

3. I now move the scope using the NSEW buttons to slew the scope slightly until the images match up (I drag one of the images around so I can line up a star etc so I get them the same).

Now you can select a guide star and start the autoguiding and you will have pretty much the same image. There will be slight rotation when you do the same object a few days later. I suppose you could rotate the camera slightly to compensate but I usually just crop the final image to get rid of this.

Greg.

[bluescope]

This is a great looking image Leon ... collating data always gives better results due to the fluctuations in the atmosphere ... you capture different data each frame. This second image is well worth the extra time and effort. Well done mate !

:thumbsup:

[Craig_L]

Hi Leon,
There are subtle improvements in the new image - more dynamic range and less noise - but it seems to be marginal for the amount of effort - struggling with the same problem. With less noise you could probaly stretch it a bit more but don't know if you'd achieve much improvement. Love to see a crop of both images.
Craig

[dugnsuz]

I like the idea of you using the technology at your disposal to return to the same imaging point on consecutive nights leon.
Very nice Rosette pics - but difficult to ascertain any subtle differences in these <200kb images.
Cheers
Doug

[strongmanmike]

Don't forget FLI http://www.flicamera.com/ and Starlightxpress http://www.starlight-xpress.co.uk/ cameras too, both make some excellent cameras. I use cameras from both manufacturers and can thouroughly recomend them both :thumbsup:.



Nice Rose BTW Leon the multiple night imaging sessions makes me jealous :sadeyes:

Mike :)

[iceman]

I like it Leon, looks great!

[leon]

Many thanks for your comments guys, I enjoyed every minute of the experiment, although it had me standing/sitting next to the scope for 10 hours all up, :rolleyes: I feel it was worth it and by your comment you all must agree as well ;)

Leon :thumbsup:

[CoolhandJo]

Leon, what f ratio was this taken at?

[leon]

Paul imaged it through the Tak at F/5.3, I presume this is what you mean.

Leon

[spearo]

well done Leon,
I always enjoy it when there are 2 images we can flick through for comparison
well done
frank

[jase]

This is a milestone image Leon. You're really bringing it all together now. Top image indeed. Keep up the fantastic work.:thumbsup:

[leon]

Many thanks guys, I do appreciate your comments, and Jase, it is coming together i think, I have never combined two nights of imaging into one, quite and interesting experiment.

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

Leon

[bloodhound31]

I really like the added frames mate. I reckon if you were enjoying it, and the quality is better than the night before, then of course, it is worth it. Now do the same image for the next six months and see if it's worth it...

[Jen]

:eyepop: nice work Leon keep em comin :D
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup::thumbsup:

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol::lol: thats funny :rofl: :rofl:
now i know im not the only one that talks to my scope
:evil::evil::evil:

[Ric]

Nice images Leon, good depth and detail.

I always like the cluster at the centre and look to see how well it stands out. I always think that the cluster is what defines the Rosette Neb.

Cheers

[leon]

Jen, you really crack me up sometimes, :lol: :lol: yea I have to admit when I'm alone outside I do tend to talk to myself sometimes, :whistle: if it all goes bad I even swear at myself, and call myself a stupid, #%&#$%(*, plus some. :D :D

Thanks Barry, I did enjoy doing this two in a row night imaging, and then combining the lot, actually I was a bit proud of myself for giving it a go, and it all came together. ;)

Yep Ric, I agree, it certainly is a great object to image, many thanks for your comments.

Leon :thumbsup:

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: yes Leon i know exactly what you mean :P I have been known for having a temper tantrum or two out the back yard
:tasdevil::tasdevil:
there are some words that just fall out of my mouth :mad:
:ashamed::ashamed:
:rofl::rofl: