NGC2080 Ghost head nebula, many stars

[Bassnut]

Hi Guys

Here (http://4256458530705943474-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredsastro/home/NGC2080%20NB%20RGB%20stars.jpg?atta chauth=ANoY7cpENQe3CVAXxppAENQHingA cEFH0yNZsXoJNaZAsy2kmkGQ1gE1wd0Md2P no3tvgGqKKcoot6uMD0Uklcj4s-1lIn140aEv53nGruptVn6C0ZQgvGRHTC8tx 9YRO0gwyNuBBEkID7b3CltSTUzq88FPyvsS a_em-aq5X3FmilxwwVcXTfb9QVfmDa2WQLNMCewL KrCNOlH9Al7seyzBk0BUBzjmDw%3D%3D&attredirects=0) is NGC2080 Ghost head nebula in colour mapped narrowband (I dont get the ghost head part at all :shrug:).

Its a straight SII:Ha:OIII mapped as RGB with too many seperate RGB stars inserted, for those that just must have them in everything :P. The seperate filter images were so different, I couldnt use Ha as lum. Yes I know blending options are possible, I just thought id go with RGB given the poor data.

I cant find anywhere on the web anything even remotely close to this FOV, I have no idea why. The images I can find look totally different and all seem to be from the same source.

It was very dim, hence the lack of detail, no sharpening at all. This effort has been a hard lesson. I took some 8hrs of Ha bin1 and 5hrs of SII, OIII bin2 and found the Ha bin1 had no detail advantage at all, was a waste of time, wouldve had better signal with Ha bin2 with no loss of res at this FL (2250mm).

The image scale at bin1 is 0.62 arc/secs (6.80 um pixels) and at bin2 1.25 arc/secs. Bin 1 is a complete waste of time with 3 arc/sec seeing unless you have very clean signal that can stand huge amounts of deconvolute and sharpenning.

I will from now on do bin2 all up for the dim stuff, untill I get a 17" :question:.

[multiweb]

Very cool details and colors. Here's one field (http://cosmicbug.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ngc-2080-fts-glee.jpg)that looks similar. :thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Ahh, there you go, thanks for that Marc. But mmm, for a scope that size, that looks pretty ordinary :shrug:

[strongmanmike]

I could make some flippant derogatory remark and follow it with a :P and a ;) but I will attempt to curb this tide :rolleyes:.....

Looks very interesting Fred, a crazy challenge for sure but you have produced a colourful ghostly looking image, nice.

Hope you don't mind Fred but for those not familiar with this bit of nebula, it is near the Tarantula Nebula - the top left area of nebulosity in this image (http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/118982234/original) with a more familiar framing

Typical but nice work Fred :thumbsup:

Mike

[Bassnut]

Possibly flippant, but always considered Mike, dont get precious with me now. Tough love is better than "nice".

In return, Im always ready for a trashing, give it, get it.

Mind ?, of course not. Ive composed every which way, not sure if this FOV is in yr image, might be mostly just out of the edge of yr image.

I might add, that you will no dought cream my efforts with your new scope. I dread the day :P :thumbsup:.

[TrevorW]

Nice one Fred

[Bassnut]

Ahh Trevor, top come back (intended or not, thats OK, thanks ;))

[strongmanmike]

Considered???.. my R's! com'on who you tryin to kid :lol:

What is the point of trashing an image, as you put it :rolleyes:, are we trying to emulate Stan Zemanek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-mdKFF78IQ) or something?



It is right there, all of it, in my (yes it's mine :lol:) image :shrug:



Not cream, just different, horses for courses. I would love a 17" CDK too you know :lol:

Mike

[Bassnut]

Semantics, you know what I mean.

[strongmanmike]

I know you drink to much :lol:

ED: will refrain from posting the usual image of mad hair Fred.

[Bassnut]

Yes, and Yes, thanks.

[Omaroo]

As usual, I like it Fred. Different is good in my book. :)

Ghost Head? I reckon "Genie Nebula"... coming out of its bottle. LOL!

Blink these two...

[seeker372011]

always great to see something different

some time ago I saw a Hubble image of this object and thought what a great target..nice to see an amateur image..even if it looks so different...

[Bassnut]

Hehe, looks like a stunned monkey :thumbsup:, thanks Chris.

[Bassnut]

Thanks Narayan, the different worries me, makes me think I butchered it or something.

[p1taylor]

not butchered very good.

peter

[Bassnut]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Peter, much appreciated.

[irwjager]

Nice effort and, like seeker372011 I'm always very happy to see something I haven't seen before.

I gotta agree with you though that the image resolution, is indeed too large for the amount of detailed contained (a high pass filter yielded nothing but the stars, which says it all). Still, lovely to look at when you resize it to 1/3!

The image is already nice and noise free, and I know I haven't been able to sell it to you in the past, but since the deed is done and you got nothing to lose, how about software binning your data and using that extra data to pump up your levels?

Regardless, always a pleasure seeing your work - like this image, it's usually more 'out there' than what's otherwise on offer.

[gregbradley]

I like it Fred. A good object not normally imaged which is hard to find in itself.

Impactful.

Greg.

[Bassnut]

Thanks Ivo. Im still poking around with doubling sub size before combine (lots of RAM!), doubling before decon, and in PS before sharpening. Even times 4 makes a big difference, but again needs much RAM with mutiple layers and masks. Software binning is on the list, but im wary and havent tried it yet.

Thanks Greg. This would be an absolute cracker with your 17" !. Theres a lot more stringy dust lane detail there that was buried in noise in my subs.

[renormalised]

Great shot, Fred:):)

Only a 17"....nah, gotta be bigger than that. Go for a 20" or 24" and really outdo them:):)