Carina with FSQ106 and Canon 5D MII at a dark sky site.

[avandonk]

Hiro a Japanese astrophotographer has recently collected data in WA.

More details here
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3821369/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1


I made a HDR from his jpg's here 17.5MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2010_05/HIRO_CAR_HDR.jpg

He has sent me his tiff files in the past to make HDR's.

Just shows what can be done with a DSLR at a dark sky site by a skilled astrophotographer.

Bert

[gregbradley]

Beautiful subtle hues everywhere. Gorgeous.

Greg.

[peterl]

Nice image with a DSLR.
They are certainly getting much better for astrophotography.

Wow!!!

[jase]

Awesome result Bert. A testimony for sticking it out with HDR. I feel the stars overwhelm the scene which do distract from some of the nebulous features (personal preference). Perhaps the can be shrunk to strike a balance. Well done.

...so you going to trade in your L series glass for an FSQ?

[iceman]

That large version is quite something.

[avandonk]

Greg Hiro later put up four jpg's of his 15s, 60s, 240s, and 900s stacks. So using these I made this image using a modified version of my HDR method.

Large image 15MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2010_05/Hiro_HDR_4img.jpg

I am sure I could do better with the 16 bit data. It would also be far better to have a stack of about 500s exposures as the two stop jump is too big.

Bert

[avandonk]

I will never sell my 300mm F2.8L Jase as it is superb for terrestial photography. It's resolution is as good as an FSQ with focal reducer although the field being far wider suffers from attenuation due to vignetting. It focuses silently and extremely quickly. In fact in camera burst mode it will keep up with an approaching/receding racing car or bird in flight. It resolves a spider web from thirty feet away in diffuse light. For really fast stuff it has a preset memory of focus position that you can lock in.

The latest version of Hiro's Carina image data deals somewhat with the stars. Sixteen (fourteen in reality) bit data would be far better.

I would like to get an FSQ but I barely get enough clear nights for the existing setup and targets.

I am seriously now thinking of collecting data remotely to fully test out my HDR methods with 16 bit data, an FSQ and a dark sky site.

The last thirty years of my working life was spent collecting xray data to elucidate the structure of biological macromolecules. We had exactly the same challenges signal to noise ratio and dynamic range. Even at a synchrotron with huge brilliance, signal to noise was still the most important parameter. We argued for years with the people at the Synchrotron in Chicago about beam configuration. They finally did what I suggested and miraculously the signal to noise was far better. Of course then it was their idea!
The Protein Beam Line at the Australian Synchrotron was designed by me/us and performs far better than even beam lines at 'bigger' synchrotrons.

I saw a niche where I could possibly contribute to astrophotography with my experience. It has been far more difficult than I first imagined. The trick was to fully understand all the variables. This is very difficult if you have any ignorance of even one variable.

If we can see further, it is because we all stand on the shoulders of people who were at it before us. I believe that is why we should give our ideas back for free.

Bert

[jase]

Good to hear you'll be keeping the 300mm monster. Its a nice lens. I was only looking at your Corona Australis image (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=61548) the other day and realised how fantastic it is to see the full extent of dusty nebulosity. I often wondered how far it went and whether it would peer up with another DSO...eventually.

Keep them coming Bert.

[TrevorW]

Great data nice composition

[leon]

Bert I'm no expert, :shrug: but I don't like it at all, I reckon I hve seen so much better from you, But that is only MHO. :thumbsup:

As a data project I suppose I have lost the plot, :shrug: but as a nice Image, it is not for me. :shrug:

Leon :thumbsup:

[avandonk]

Leon it is a HDR image cobbled together from eight bit data. It just shows what is possible from a dark sky site. Look at the faint bits which are clearly visible. I dislike cartoon like representations just as much as you.

Bert

[DavidTrap]

Leon - I must agree with you. It didn't make me go "wow", only "hmmmm".

DavidT

[avandonk]

I just went 'wow' at your 'hmmmm'

Bert

[astroron]

There is lots of work there Birt, but I am afraid I agree with Leon and David, it is getting as though you "cannot see the Wood for the Trees" The nebula
shape has all but disappeared:(
Just what is happening with images of Messier 17, they are just a mess of nebulosity,lots of data but no beauty:sadeyes:
Cheers

[avandonk]

In all honesty I would not do it this way. I would take far better care about balance. I could only process the data I had. If it irritates your collective appreciation so be it.
It is a 'brute force' way of depicting something that is far more subtle.

It finally depends on the balance between dim stuff and the very bright stuff. Show me an image that comes close to showing both at once.

Bert

[DavidTrap]

Bert, I'm sure our comments weren't intended to cause you offence. I'm just calling it how I see it. The stars aren't pinpoints and the background is smokey.

DT

[Satchmo]

One of the most stunning images of the Eta Carinae region I have seen in a long time. Looking at the high resolution version scaled to fit my HD 24" monitor the stars are tiny and pinoint sharp. You can't judge this photo until you see the large version on a large monitor. The small picture embedded in the thread does not remotely do it justice :) A fantastic piece of work from all concerned.

[DavidTrap]

For the record, I did view the high res version on my 24inch monitor before casting my opinion...

DT

[multiweb]

Sure are a lot of stars. I really like the colors and the blue reflection nebs that are usually totally missed in the area. Loads of dust around. Very cool shot. :thumbsup: Needs to be seen on a large scale monitor or plasma screen - agreed. A computer monitor just doesn't do it justice.

[Satchmo]

On my 1920 X 1200 pixel monitor with the image scaled to fit width the smallest star images are at the pixel level ...it doesn't get any better then that. :shrug:

[multiweb]

Well I would have thought so too. You can see the finger in the keyhole. With that kind of field it's unheard of... so I reckon the stars look pretty good. :lol:

[avandonk]

Maybe I should have put up a jpg that falls apart at close inspection where all the stars are just jagged bits of junk.

Then without further thinking we can all say "nice".

I honestly do not care and the comments are taken on board but this is the best I could do with the available data.

When amateurs rubbish an FSQ 106 as far as resolution is concerned I am sincerely doubting their sanity. The fact that this image has more depth than anything put up so far could be the problem.

I will leave you all to ponder my shortcomings.

Bert

[DavidTrap]

Now is that comment really necessary Bert?

DT

[acropolite]

Gentlemen, may I remind you to be polite at all times, this is a discussion not a jousting match.

Now to throw my jousting stick in to the ring....

I have to agree with Mark.

At full screen (scaled to just 25% of original size) the large image just slightly overfills my (calibrated) 24 inch screen, I have to agree that at that scale the image is superb, I have not seen better.

[avandonk]

OK I withdraw that remark as I was tired an emotional! Sorry and sorry again. I did allude to my shortcomings.

Bert

[avandonk]

I am seriously thinking of getting a 30" NEC monitor at $3.1k dollars. The 27" monitor I have now is nearly useless as I can never get the colours just correct. There is a better one but that costs $6.4k.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. I am used to a robust exchange of ideas in CSIRO where I worked for thirty years. I have called my boss nearly every name under the sun and vice versa.

I miss those days.

Bert

[h0ughy]

I think it is a brilliant image - looks good on the 7", 12" 14" 15.6", 17" 24" and the 32" monitors I have. Keep up the good work - keeps me sane knowing the universe is appearing in front of me

[DavidTrap]

Thank-you Bert.

DT

[avandonk]

That was never the twenty minute argument!
Yes it was!
No it was not!
It was only five minutes!

Hiro a Japanese amateur photographer has collected images at 10,000 ft in Chile next to the big telescopes. He still needs a bit of direction as far as processing data is concerned. But don't we all.

His FSQ 106 and Canon 5D MII is just amazing in his hands. He is a very quick learner.

I am just stunned at the depth and clarity of his data. To collect the very weak blue reflection nebulae that is normally made less pronounced by extinction in the intervening atmosphere of Earth as clearly as you see it in the HDR image is a complete revelation to me.

I did not put this image up to start any arguments. Merely to show what is possible.

By the way even with HDR if you want to see the dim stuff the stars get brighter!

Bert

[strongmanmike]

Bert this is a fantastic presentation of this area, the huge number of stars is really impressive and rather than detract from the scene they lift it IMO and showcase the depth of the image, our galaxy is after all full of stars!

As has been mentioned it really must be viewed at full res and then shrunk on your screen to fit, then it looks brilliant.

I pulled it into photoshop and played with curves to reduce the green cast, especially evident in the left half of the image and accentuate the blue a little, the resulting image was full of yellow, orange, white and blue stars with delicate nebulosity visible and the blue reflection nebulsoity was slightly enhanced - it looked beautiful.

WELL DONE :thumbsup:

Mike

[Hagar]

I can see the quality of the data but not really my cup of tea. Maybe just different.

[Omaroo]

Very nice data Bert. :thumbsup: I'm looking at it on my 2560x1440 monitor at 1:1 and it's rather spectacular. As Mark says, the smaller stars are beautifully defined, and the "mess" of stars makes far more sense when seen at 1:1 because they're so clearly defined within the nebulosity. It's almost as though you can see them literally floating in front of the colourful veil behind them Very nicely done.