The Vela SuperNova Remnant

[gregbradley]

This is one of my favourite areas of the night sky. The Vela SuperNova Remnant.

I took this one last weekend with the AstroPhysics RHA 305mm F3.8 scope and a FLI Proline 16803.

A Ha and LRGB blend.

It shows the Supernova explosion shockwaves quite clearly. I wonder if they still have massive energy in them or not.

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/160149522/large

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/ima...49522/original

Alternate version with reduced stars:

http://www.pbase.com/image/160153482/large

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/ima...53482/original

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Ah huh! Now! THAT'S looking more Honderesque a great field...you must have hammered that region a fair bit over the years Greg...time to do it all over again I recon

Mike

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ah huh! Now! THAT'S looking more Honderesque a great field...you must have hammered that region a fair bit over the years Greg...time to do it all over again I recon

Mike

Thanks Mike. Yes I reckon I have imaged it probably about 12 times now.

Greg.

[Placidus (Mike and Trish)]

Very fine, Greg. Lovely.

A slight increase in contrast in the blue seemed to improve it even further.

My very amateur and shaky understanding (Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, Kaler, Extreme Stars, etc) is that a SNR is still self-emitting, from a variety of mechanisms, including (in some sort of overlapping time sequence) radioactive decay (months to years), braking radiation (eg Crab nebula), mechanical shock energy (immediate to thousands of years), and finally recombination of ionized hydrogen and oxygen. Only very late in the piece would the gas be glowing purely and only from energy from other OB stars. But the details elude me. I'll go away and read up on it.

[IanP]

Wow! Greg, the frame is full of things … Honderesque, huh?
To processing: on the “original” I can see some noise …
I’d put it through the clone-masked ATrousWaveletTransform and use very mild parameters for “noise-reduction” for the 1st 4 layers (2.5, 1.5, 0.7, 0.3) ..

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by IanP

Wow! Greg, the frame is full of things … Honderesque, huh?
To processing: on the “original” I can see some noise …
I’d put it through the clone-masked ATrousWaveletTransform and use very mild parameters for “noise-reduction” for the 1st 4 layers (2.5, 1.5, 0.7, 0.3) ..

Thanks Ian. I didn't notice the noise but I do now. I have done some noise reduction without damaging the fine detail.

Originally Posted by Placidus

Very fine, Greg. Lovely.

A slight increase in contrast in the blue seemed to improve it even further.

My very amateur and shaky understanding (Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, Kaler, Extreme Stars, etc) is that a SNR is still self-emitting, from a variety of mechanisms, including (in some sort of overlapping time sequence) radioactive decay (months to years), braking radiation (eg Crab nebula), mechanical shock energy (immediate to thousands of years), and finally recombination of ionized hydrogen and oxygen. Only very late in the piece would the gas be glowing purely and only from energy from other OB stars. But the details elude me. I'll go away and read up on it.

Thanks for the tip. I boosted the blue channel in curves a bit.

Greg.

[RickS (Rick)]

Another lovely one, Greg! What were the integration times?

Cheers,
Rick.

[jase (Jason)]

Starting to get the RH to sing now Greg. Impressive FoV. Not overly keen on the bright stars, they look a little bloated and distracting. I don't think its the set up, but likely the processing. The twists and knots of nebulosity look great. No OIII data? A bit more time spent on the processing and you'd have a ripper image.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

wow, thats more like it!. Jase is wrong off course, the stars pop, not that I like stars much.

[batema (Mark)]

Hi Greg. I'm loving your journey with the new scope. Beautiful image.
Mark

[Paul Haese]

Did you use the minimum tool on the stars Greg? The smaller stars look joined up to me on the high res image.

I do like the colour though and the expansive view.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by RickS

Another lovely one, Greg! What were the integration times?

Cheers,
Rick.

Thanks Rick. 3 hours total, 1 hour Ha 6 x 10mins and LRGB 30 minutes each x 5min subs.

Originally Posted by jase

Starting to get the RH to sing now Greg. Impressive FoV. Not overly keen on the bright stars, they look a little bloated and distracting. I don't think its the set up, but likely the processing. The twists and knots of nebulosity look great. No OIII data? A bit more time spent on the processing and you'd have a ripper image.

No O111 data. Perhaps next time. Its pretty low in the sky now.

Here's a version with reduced stars.

http://www.pbase.com/image/160153482/large

Originally Posted by Bassnut

wow, thats more like it!. Jase is wrong off course, the stars pop, not that I like stars much.

Cheers Fred. That says a lot as I know you are not a fan of stars. It is to some degree a matter of what someone likes but I do think most prefer tighter smaller bright stars. Not every scope will give it.

David Malin would probably say respect the light and some stars are brighter than others.

Originally Posted by batema

Hi Greg. I'm loving your journey with the new scope. Beautiful image.
Mark

Thanks Mark. I am enjoying it as well.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Which do you prefer the original or the reduced bright stars version?

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/160149522/large

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/ima...49522/original

Alternate version with reduced stars:

http://www.pbase.com/image/160153482/large

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/ima...53482/original

[Ross G]

Great looking photo Greg.

The stars in both versions look small.

You are the master in imaging this area.

Ross.

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the nice compliment Ross.
Greg