M16 and M8 connected!

[Peter Ward]

My Milky-way project continues.....(and seems to be getting bigger than Ben Hur )

As the dataset is getting rather large now, (over 15,000 pixels wide) I've had to reduce it 75% to keep it web friendly (the link below is still close to 2mb)

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery65.html

Keen eyed observers will notice some gaps in the data :) To be filled when we get a few more gaps in the clouds....

[multiweb]

Wow! That's awesome. Gotta keep going now. :thumbsup:

[bloodhound31]

Tuning in every time to watch this mate! IFL!

[marc4darkskies]

Nice Peter :thumbsup: But I'm curious ... what's the point of doing mosaics like this? Since you'll never be able to display the image in one go at a high res (unless you do a print on a very big poster) why not just attach a good quality 100mm or 200mm lens to the STX? :scared3:

Cheers, Marcus

[Ric]

Wow :eyepop:

[Peter Ward]

While my printer can indeed do A3 panoramic prints, that was not my primary interest.

Even though PC monitors cannot display this sort of res in one hit (but they are getting bigger better cheaper all the time) it matters not, as when resampled I'd suggest the image quality is way higher than what you can get with a camera lens.

However a full res Quicktime VR...now that might be cool ;)

[mexhunter]

Hi Peter:
An extraordinary work.
Many greetings
Cesar

[Benny L]

you never know, someone might want some custom wall paper for the pool room :eyepop:

[marc4darkskies]

I'll believe that when I see it ... you posting full res that is! :lol:

[strongmanmike]

Concern that some unscupulous sod will steal it I think..? :rolleyes: :lol:

However I agree with your Peter t'will always look that bit better even at smaller image sizes.

Mike

[Peter Ward]

Actually it's happened to me a few times....

The most recent and annoying was some dude in the Emirates trying to use his interpretation of Qur'an the re-write the astrophysics behind some of my images. Astro-Jihad ??? :lol:

[Peter Ward]

For those who were grumbling about the "small" image size :D, I've re-done the page with the image at around 50% res in portrait format.

You'll probably want broadband, the image file size is around 3Mb

[multiweb]

Have you tried Zoomify (http://www.zoomify.com/)? Works nicely with a flash output.

[jase]

Great work Peter. Pleased to see you've taken up the challenge to image all the way to M8. How many more panels to go until you feel its complete? I don't see the gaps you mention, but would like to see a little more room (buffer) around the targets. I called it quits after twelve 11002 panels but the 16803 has a larger collection area.

Don't mention stealing data. I've had a few rips, actually one of this (http://cosmicphotos.com/gallery/image.php?fld_image_id=186&fld_album_id=9) image. Funny how you know the characteristics of your data.

Looking forward to seeing the end result!

[Peter Ward]

Thanks Jase....suffice to say I was inspired by your splendid rendition of the same area :thumbsup:

I suspect I'll need another 10-12. It has not been overly difficult to get the data in H-Alpha. The weather however has been a hurdle....:rain:

[Octane]

Peter,

Sensational! Agree with Jase, a bit more room to breathe for the bigger objects would be nice.

Who knows, you might be inspired to keep going and do the whole band? :P

H

[Bassnut]

Well, I find this a bit of a puzzle Peter. You go to this trouble to give prestigious resolution, but on zooming to M8 or M16, they are blown to hell. At full view it looks great, but isnt the point of a mozaic that it allows zooming and maintain the quality youd expect of an image of the object your zooming to?. After all, each panel within itself is an image that should appear awesome if it was imaged by itself.

Its as if you processed the whole view as one, without consideration of each objects dynamics, I would recommend M8 and M16 for example are processed seperately for maximum effect and blended into the mozaic so that on zooming they each were appropriate within themselves.

[multiweb]

:confuse3:... yeah that's actually one of the problem I've encountered in starting playing with mosaics too. Even not within a field as extended as this one. The difference in dynamic ranges and luminosity between two well known DSOs, like M17 next to M16 for example is so big that you have to compromise not to make one or the other look 'funny'. You know, like when you play with the shadow highlight tool in PS and you can push the bright core of a nebula to something darker than the surrounding neb if you push it too hard? Then it looks odd? Same happens on extended fields like this one. You've got to cheat somewhere and not make the blend obvious but it's not straight forward IMHO. :shrug: I think this whole field is extremely well balanced considering.

[jase]

If you correctly balance the background luminosity between the panels, the relative brightness of the DSO's will be in alignment and accurately correlate. Individually processing the DSO can lead to an inaccurate representation if not managed correctly. That is the challenge of mosaic work. To some extent luminance and colour fidelity is lost, but you're trying best to minimise this. I work on the approach that balancing the background and identically stretching the data as being sufficient from an accurate representation. Of course, my approach is 'lightweight'...if you're a true hardcore mosaic enthusiast, you'll go that step further by referencing space-born visual photometry data aboard probes such as Pioneer 10 and 11. The data measurements from such tools provide a good "sky glow" reading and can be used to subtract from your earth-born data, leaving you with an accurate background reading (subtraction of bad glow). This is the process Axel Mellinger used in his recent MilkyWay mosaic.

Keep focus on the end goal Peter. Often I've thought ahh...is it all worth it. Shall I go image something else easier...NO! commitment to the end of the project shows hardcore dedication. As if producing a single frame image isn't hard enough at times! ;) Add a few panels and the dramas unfold. Mosaics test ones patience...and better still...photoshop skills. :)

[Bassnut]

"If you correctly balance the background luminosity between the panels, the relative brightness of the DSO's will be in alignment and accurately correlate"

WHAT a load of horse shiet ( Ive had a few:P), "accurately correlate", "Individually processing the DSO can lead to an inaccurate representation", who gives a toss?, blown is blown :lol:.

Surely asthetics count too?.

[rat156]

Great, Peter.

So much more of a challenge than just whacking a camera lens on your ST.

But, where are you getting such clear skies??

Cheers
Stuart

[Peter Ward]

Err. No.

The relative intensity relationship between objects needs to be accurate IMHO....hence I process the entire field at once after it has been stitched (a 64 bit processor and 8 gigs of RAM helps!)

Sure I could alter each object....but that would not represent the reality, particularly with very large field mosaics.

I think it's important to preserve these relationships, otherwise you might as well get the airbrush tool out and paint the entire scene ;)

[Bassnut]

"The relative intensity relationship between objects needs to be accurate IMHO"........ why?, if it results in a compressed, blown, unappealing zoom experience?.

"Sure I could alter each object....but that would not represent the reality, particularly with very large field mosaics".... and reality is presented with a compressed dynamic range, detail free, blown zoom experience?, not.

"I think it's important to preserve these relationships, otherwise you might as well get the airbrush tool out and paint the entire scene"

No, thats a theoretical distortion of the "reality" of astrophotograhy, and a non sensical conclusion. The relationships cant be presented faithfully on present technology (my LCD, or my eyes for that matter). We process non-linearly precisely because of those limitations.

Attempting to maintain "reality" as you imply is a lazy copout, resulting in unasthetic "blown" results.

[strongmanmike]

Like the repressive war on Terror though, don't let them win :mad2: :thumbsup: by resorting to only posting low res images means they have won and the other 99.9999% of viewers lose out.

Whats the story behind that image extortion?

Mike

[Peter Ward]

I'd agree I could tweak the gamma curve somewhat better to display more information in the "interesting bits" .

But I'd still make the personal choice to make sure those tranformations are image wide, rather than localised ( ie. loss of shadow detail due display limitations being the likely result)

BTW zooming into a <50% quality .jpg is bound to disappoint. The fine structure in the original .tiff looks good to me... But I doubt anybody is going to thank me for putting a 100Mb into their browsers ;)

[strongmanmike]

Whoa Fred :eyepop: LOTS OF southo tonight huh? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl ::rofl:

Gotta Luv ya...aaaand we do :thumbsup:

[multiweb]

:eyepop: :lol: Are you gonna mosaic to the pub? :P

[Peter Ward]

Humm.. come to think of it, I saw a really big mosaic on SBIG users recently that looked a little too similar to the above and a somewhat doubtful time-frame quoted to get the data.

[RobF]

Ummm - nice work Peter - looking forward to hearing/seeing more of this one.
Ducking for cover to avoid flying objects for now....:scared3:

[tornado33]

A very detailed image that looks fantastic at a scale where it is as wide as the monitor and then scrolling up and down through it.
Scott

[RB]

Beautiful work Peter ! :thumbsup:





Speaking of "borrowing" someone else's photo.......:P

That's my favourite portrait of Fred.

:lol:

[strongmanmike]

Ooops I'm busted, I thought by disguising it with the bottle of Southern Comfort you wouldn't notice :ashamed:...you eagle eyed Hellenic

:D

[Bassnut]

I like the pic actually Peter, I was (mostly) joshin wit you :thumbsup:.

Anyway, I stole that pic of me myself :question:, and I dont recognise the bottle at all, ive never seen a full one :P.