[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Originally Posted by Placidus

That's very fine, Andrew. The number of background galaxies with detailed detectable shape and structure is impressive.

Thanks Mike and Trish!

Originally Posted by multiweb

That is superb Andrew. Cooking on all 6 now. You've resolved many of the background faint fuzzies.

Thanks - there's a lot of really cool little irregular things hiding in there.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I feel your pain with the streetlight(s)...think I have about 4.5 million of the suckers to contend with....

Beautifuly resolved. Nice one

Thanks Peter! I thing your light pollution must be about double mine, I'm 10km away from the CBD, but it's not exaclty the same population!

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Terrific image Andrew. Galaxy detail and colour look spot on. Only comment would be the relatively high background noise that could be reduced.

Greg.

Thanks Greg - as per my reply to Rick, the first night's data gave a better background, and I think I got too clever with Pixinisght!

Originally Posted by RickS

Andrew,

I agree with Greg's comment that the background would benefit from a little clean up, but the galaxy looks great

Did you find that LocalNormalization made a worthwhile contribution? I have tried it a couple of times on difficult fields with very faint detail and haven't been convinced it was an improvement.

Cheers,
Rick.

Funny you should say that, Rick. The first night's data I processed without it and it looked a lot cleaner. When I combined both nights data I tried using it. Looking at the rejection images, it looks like it's doing a great job of eliminating all the local gradients, but the end result was a lot harder to get a nice stretch on. The background noise is as good as I could get it before a lot of localised blobs appeared in it. But in comparison, the first night's image had a much better background. I might try again without the local normalisation and see if that's why it went bad...