Quote:
Originally Posted by marc4darkskies
A belated well done Jase - a magnificent rendition in every respect. 
I'm working on my version of this now - won't be able to beat the res of an RC though 
Cheers, Marcus |
Thanks Marcus.
Look forward to seeing your efforts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Correct me If I'm wrong, the the res in Jase's image seems to vary. On one hand the Binary on the outer arm (at 2.00 o'clock) is not cleanly split, yet the stars in the core show remarkable depth and resolution (that I have not seen in anything less than a 20") Must be those dark Gippsland skies? Fascinating !
|
That's the downside of not having a smooth transition in your processing routine Peter. How did I get such resolution I hear you say. I teased it out - Multi Stength Decon Blend (MSDB) layers from none other than Ken Crawford -
http://www.rdelsol.com/Presentations.html. The transition masks could have certainly been smoother. I do blur and alter the opacity of all masks to assist in the transition, but perhaps not enough this time. You sure you don't want to give me remote access to that 14" RC of yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Wonderful image. Jase. I'm interested in your comments on processing/imaging breakdown. If anything the ratio is an even split in my case (although it is hard to quantify). I throw out up to 50% of my raw data images if the results fall below a particular FWHM value. That value depends on the type of object I am imaging.
Regards
Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small |
Cheers Steven. A 50% cut on your subs is pretty harsh. Certainly a low efficiency rate. I'd be trying to increase the output. Whether using AO or carefully selecting the nights where seeing is great to go deep. Its not always a bad thing to be a wide field woose and image even when seeing is woeful. Thanks for your comments.