NGC1365 all new data

[Paul Haese]

This is just another set of data that I took last weekend. I keep changing the components from the OTA to the camera in an effort to sort out the issues with the stars.

I know have the OAG focused thanks to a spacer that QSI makes for its camera now. I could not get focus before that on the OAG. I also added a couple spacers for the back of the OTA that I borrowed from a friend. This has helped to stiffen things up but still not 100%. I am currently waiting on more spacers.

The flattener is still in the wrong position as the stars near the outside edges look elongated. Collimation is close but I tried using the collimation tool in CCD inspector but found this just was not as good as taking images of an out of focus star.

This image is a reprocess. I think the image is too faint for 5 minute subs and I should be working toward doing 10 minutes RGB as well as those in L. 5 minute subs just are too noisey for my liking and are causing all the noise I am getting in this data. By comparison NGC 253 was very smooth and I put this down to the brightness of the object which I think is affected by the flux.

Comments; contructive and otherwise welcomed.

Click Here for image (http://paulhaese.net/NGC1365-QSI-flat.html)

[bmitchell82]

your getting there paul, 10min subs i think would be your bogy hole! colour balance seems good and you have kept a bit of the star colours (thats what im working towards next :D). Hope you get that flattener sorted for your own sanity! ;)

[mexhunter]

Hello Paul:
It is a fantastic result.
I ask myself if the QSI583, mounted in that 8" , it produces vineting?
Many greetings
Cesar

[Paul Haese]

No vignetting Cesar. Flats look pretty good through it. It can handle an APS sized chip and my initial images of M42 and Lagoon did not show any vignetting.

Mitchell, yeah 10 minute subs are needed I think. I am slowly going insance with this configuration. I just contacted precise parts to get an adapter machined up so I can get the field flattener in the correct position, with any luck that will work.

Thanks for the comments.

[bmitchell82]

hazzar :) hopefully. but don't worry your a league ahead of me im still battling the crappy SW focuser! and i don't have a field flattener yet :) hehehe ahh well! sall good!

[mexhunter]

Hi Paul:
Thank you very much by this information.
I value to much.
Many greetings
Cesar

[jase]

Looking good Paul. A vast improvement over your first attempt with this data set. More data may assist, but I feel what you've present is in true form. The image doesn't "snap" and has an overall smooth appearance. Perhaps a few subs in the data set not delivering a good FWHM could be removed before the data combine to see if it improves the resolution. Regardless, a solid result indeed. Well done.

EDIT: I'm assuming you know how to check FWHM in CCDStack by registering/aligning the data, then double clicking a non saturated star. This will highlight the FWHM of the same star across the entire stack of subs within the image manager window allowing easy review/removal of bad subs.

[TheDecepticon]

Hi Paul, looking good! Keep chipping away!:D

[Paul Haese]

Thanks all for the comments.

Jase, I am thinking that the signal to noise ratio on this object really requires 10 minute subs on all channels rather than using 5 minute subs on the RGB components.

I will have to learn more about FWHM, and thank you for giving me this tip.

There are so many things I need to keep an eye on now, but it is all fun.:)

[toryglen-boy]

Paul

This image is sensational, and something i aspire to.

thanks for sharin'


:P

[gregbradley]

Very nice Paul.

Your images are improving at a very rapid rate.

Greg.

[Bassnut]

Nice one Paul, some nice detail there, and guiding looks great. Now that your using an OAG, why not try 15 or even 20min subs?, wont be any harder.