Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
Impressive result so far Paul. I like the composition in order to fit the key features in the fov. You could have told me it was 8hrs or 30hrs and I'd be none the wiser. There does come a point of diminishing returns whereby all mega data begins to offer is a greater choice on sub quality selection for inclusion in the combine. This in turn can make processing easier. Just don't loose site of the fact that its not always about how much data you acquire, its the quality of the data you acquire.
-Asymptote-
Back in 2009, AIC Hubble Award Lecturer Tony Hallas did a presentation of CCDnoise and the point of diminishing returns, aka Asymptote. You may want to check out the presentation. http://www.aicccd.com/archive/aic200...s-ccdnoise.pdf - Note its 75Mb in size so download it before viewing. The presentation doesn't read well, you had to be there but I can tell you a few in the crowd were surprised including me.
I'm certainly not laughing at your mega data addiction. Did however get a chuckle out of your OIII attempt. Rule number one, research your target.  |
Thanks Jase, Yes the data quality is uppermost in my mind. I have a FWHM that I am prepared to accept and beyond that it gets rejected. My recent image of NGC55 had over 30 hours of data captured but only 17.5 made it to the image.
You're 100% correct about research. I had thought I had seen a narrow band image of this before but I only lost half a night. Next time I will be more proactive prior to imaging.