Hi All,
It’s been a rather productive of late on the remote imaging front. New moon, clear skies and excellent seeing as this image will attest.
So, I’m pleased to present my latest effort: NGC2264 - The Cone Nebula.
About the target;
Located in the constellation Monoceros, the Cone Nebula (NGC2264) is part of a greater formation of nebulosity known as the Christmas tree. The cone is a stellar nursery comprising of cold molecular hydrogen and dust, producing a dark absorption nebula. These properties mask the vibrant red hues of hydrogen atoms being ionized by the bright star S Monocerotos. The Cone Nebula resides approximately 2,500 light-years away.
About the image;
I’m going to cut this short (you can send me a PM or email for processing info if you so desire). The image is a L+[Ha+R]+RGB composite with a total exposure time of 4.5 hours (L:90min,Ha:180min,R:60min,G:60min, B:60min). It was acquired on Lightbuckets RCOS 20” F/8.1 (4115mm FL) located at Mayhill, New Mexico (altitude of 2220 meters with great seeing experienced at the time of acquisition). Quite some processing on this image, plenty of deconvolution blends and USMasking to tease out the structure along with some heavy noise reduction due to the limited data quantity – certainly could do with more.
Awesome indeed. Lovely milky quality to the texture of the nebula. I've been waiting to try this object but I can see one tenth the FL @ 400 is going to be a problem. Craig
Ok, well, it certainly has that classic slightly soft atmospheric quality, but the large stars are a tad busy with the huge halos and spikes. Somewhat distracting.
The star size/artifacts and softness doesnt equate with the hi res ABG cam/quality OTA used methinks. Again, the overall classic "feel" is excellent, familiar, but one might expect a little more technical precision given the rig.
Now that is a awesome image Jase! Must be one of the nicest Cone neb pics I have seen!
Top marks for sure!
cheers Gary
Cheers Gary. I'm pleased the way the image has turned out. Took a while to strike the right Ha+R blend. Sometimes it was too strong, while other times too weak. Will settle for this rendition in the mean time. Thanks again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig_L
Awesome indeed. Lovely milky quality to the texture of the nebula. I've been waiting to try this object but I can see one tenth the FL @ 400 is going to be a problem. Craig
Thanks Craig. This is actually a perfect region to capture at 400mm as you'll get the entire Christmas tree region. The cone is relatively small in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
The details and colors are unbelievable. It has so much depth as well and it's very smooth. Mind blowing stuff.
Thanks Marc. Perhaps a little too smooth, but not too much data to work with left me with only one resort. It was heavily masked to manage the delicate details around stars and the cone. Pleased you like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut
Jase
Ok, well, it certainly has that classic slightly soft atmospheric quality, but the large stars are a tad busy with the huge halos and spikes. Somewhat distracting.
The star size/artifacts and softness doesnt equate with the hi res ABG cam/quality OTA used methinks. Again, the overall classic "feel" is excellent, familiar, but one might expect a little more technical precision given the rig.
Don't do a Mike on me Fred. Fat stars? Its an open cluster which deserves some attention. Look at the resolution my friend. How about the triplet beside GSC750:1767 (attached below). Fat stars would have consumed these. In all seriousness, appreciate the comments and of course pleased you like the classic feel.
..."Don't do a Mike on me" wha tha?? and hey Fred who ya calling fat??
Apart from the things Fred Sidonio has already pointed out, this is a great image Jase. I am sure you can see more flaws than we can anyway (well apart from the ones that you can't see)...and give ya self a pat on the back my friend, I love the way you have left a little noise in the image this time WELL DONE!!! You have avoided that plastic look
Top work, an enjoyable image.
Mike
a little noise is good ..and they are just big stomach bones
Jase now I know you are a fine imager, and your work is spot on, (always) as is your helpful information to me, and others, but this one did not do it for me.
I'm sure it is processed as it should be, and this is only MHO.
This might be worth 1.6 cents based on the current economy and the fact that I am not an imager of much chop at all, but...........
I agree with Leon and Fred, firstly because the bright stars with the diffraction spikes overload the image and I actually caught myself squinting at their brightness compared to the rest of the image.
Secondly, and this may be because of the first reason, but my impression of the image and my reaction to it is that it reminded me of a Christmas lights display on a house? Not because of the constellation or its proximity to the greater nebulous area (yes I always read your interesting editorials).
Anyway, that's just my opinion, I know it may not matter based on my experience level, and I certainly intend no offense, but without a comparitive experience level as a peer, I can only offer my impressions of the image as seen by my eyes and my interpretation.
Now, where was that couch again Leon? Move over, I may need to join you.....
Great quality, just not my cup of tea either, sorry.
I would love to see a "toned down" version of the diffraction spike stars in brightness volume if possible? Or you could just tell me to go jump... , your choice.
A spectacular image Jase. Fabulous framing with the peak of the neb and that bright star right in the centre of the image.
As always with most any image everyone has their preferences and that is the nature of art and people are different thank god.
I think sometimes though the concentration is too much on the technical side of images rather than their impact as a piece of art where the technical side only needs to be adaequate to create the effect on the audience whatever that level may be.
Is there such a thing as a perfect image? Can't be.
I think sometimes though the concentration is too much on the technical side of images rather than their impact as a piece of art where the technical side only needs to be adaequate to create the effect on the audience whatever that level may be.
You're right Greg, I agree and this is a less often imaged object too so deserves some focus on just that.
Jase's image, like all of his work, is beautiful for sure but we all know from the descriptions of his very involved processing flow that he does have a tinny winny bit of a preocupation with processing perfection or at least the quest for it. I think Jase welcomes this sort of critisism and analysis in his quest? Isn't that right Jase?
Yes I can see Jase loves the hi-tech aspect of the processing which is fair enough as it is a large part of creating the image. What - probably at least 50% of a successful image is the processing??
Certainly great data can be wrecked by careless processing. On the other hand there's only so much you can do with poor original data.
Great pic, when compared to this version (also taken with a 20" RC) I prefer your rendition of the nebula, it seems more natural and 3D, even though it may have slightly less detail (although the 9 hours of data capture didn't hurt him in that regard ) however I think the other version controlled the bright stars a bit better, unless that is because the halo's have been rendered a more violet colour that blends in with the nebula making it harder to see.
..."Don't do a Mike on me" wha tha?? and hey Fred who ya calling fat??
Apart from the things Fred Sidonio has already pointed out, this is a great image Jase. I am sure you can see more flaws than we can anyway (well apart from the ones that you can't see)...and give ya self a pat on the back my friend, I love the way you have left a little noise in the image this time WELL DONE!!! You have avoided that plastic look
Top work, an enjoyable image.
Mike
a little noise is good ..and they are just big stomach bones
Its all good Mike. Didn't think I'd catch you off guard - no harm in trying. Yes, a few flaws in this image. Many masked away in processing and some I simply didn't chase and left as is. The halos are what I got straight out of the blue master. Actually they were a tad green which I resolved. I'd typically remedy halos but thought I keep it "natural" this time round. Thanks again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
Very pleasing, easy on the eyes image. Loads of fine detail but I do find it hard to fault. I would be over the moon with this class of image.
Cheers Doug. If you look hard enough you'll find the faults. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and make comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut
What I said PLUS noise ?, Sheesh, I see what you mean by "do a Mike" .
What noise?, that needs a fair bit of zooming to pick that, no complaints here on that front, specially with the Southern Comfort filter.
Yes, GSC750:1767 is resolved well, top work, but you set a high bar Jase, fat stars are not expected.
Anyway, you deliver the unusual Jase, I look forward to your pics, most enjoyable.
Thanks again Fred. Unusual, nah, your starless lagoon was unusual. All I'm delivering is common objects at long focal lengths. Perhaps the composition is a little strange at times, but that's about it. Just need to get this narrowfield imaging addiction out of my system, then I'll go back to wide fields for a while with the FSQ or something else. The fun never stops!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Just a few hot/dark pixels to clean up, otherwise a fine image indeed.
Very cool.
(...says he..... as the clouds roll in again across the Sydney basin....)
Thanks Peter. Yeah, I'm getting lazy with the image scrubbing techniques - thanks for the boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leon
Jase now I know you are a fine imager, and your work is spot on, (always) as is your helpful information to me, and others, but this one did not do it for me.
I'm sure it is processed as it should be, and this is only MHO.
Leon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwdriverone
Hi Jase,
This might be worth 1.6 cents based on the current economy and the fact that I am not an imager of much chop at all, but...........
I agree with Leon and Fred, firstly because the bright stars with the diffraction spikes overload the image and I actually caught myself squinting at their brightness compared to the rest of the image.
Secondly, and this may be because of the first reason, but my impression of the image and my reaction to it is that it reminded me of a Christmas lights display on a house? Not because of the constellation or its proximity to the greater nebulous area (yes I always read your interesting editorials).
Anyway, that's just my opinion, I know it may not matter based on my experience level, and I certainly intend no offense, but without a comparitive experience level as a peer, I can only offer my impressions of the image as seen by my eyes and my interpretation.
Now, where was that couch again Leon? Move over, I may need to join you.....
Great quality, just not my cup of tea either, sorry.
I would love to see a "toned down" version of the diffraction spike stars in brightness volume if possible? Or you could just tell me to go jump... , your choice.
Cheers
Chris
Leon, Chris,
Appreciate the comments - no need to hide. I can understand where you guys are coming from. Diffraction spikes aren't everyone's liking. Personally, I don't mind them and they're a fact of life when using an RCOS and other native reflectors. Give me a 20" APO and that would be a different story. You can stretch and mask the data to minimise the spike extension, but care must be taken to keep other stars relative. The large star in the center is actually two stars, hence its apparent brightness. You can see this from the fainter diffraction spike beneath the prominent one. Perhaps diffraction spike have a purpose after all. Yes, Chris, rather ironic that you mention it looks like Christmas lights on a house considering the specific cluster is known as the Christmas tree cluster! Not sure if I'll produce a toned down version. May do, with fresh eyes but wont be for a while. I do have a couple of renditions, but all include vibrant stars found in this scene. Thanks again guys. Really good feedback and pleased you spoke up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
A spectacular image Jase. Fabulous framing with the peak of the neb and that bright star right in the centre of the image.
As always with most any image everyone has their preferences and that is the nature of art and people are different thank god.
I think sometimes though the concentration is too much on the technical side of images rather than their impact as a piece of art where the technical side only needs to be adaequate to create the effect on the audience whatever that level may be.
Is there such a thing as a perfect image? Can't be.
Greg.
Thanks Greg. Yes, I thought about the framing on this one for sometime...and was somewhat limited on guide star selection, but worked out quite well. I should add the 2400x1800 is still a crop of a image reduced down to 70% of its original size. No need to talk about image sizes to you with the U16M. Like everyone, I try to keep the processing real and depict the scene as is. Easier said than done - always interpretable too. Correct, there is no such thing as a perfect image, but its possible to produce an aesthetic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
You're right Greg, I agree and this is a less often imaged object too so deserves some focus on just that.
Jase's image, like all of his work, is beautiful for sure but we all know from the descriptions of his very involved processing flow that he does have a tinny winny bit of a preocupation with processing perfection or at least the quest for it. I think Jase welcomes this sort of critisism and analysis in his quest? Isn't that right Jase?
Nice Cone man....
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Yes I can see Jase loves the hi-tech aspect of the processing which is fair enough as it is a large part of creating the image. What - probably at least 50% of a successful image is the processing??
Certainly great data can be wrecked by careless processing. On the other hand there's only so much you can do with poor original data.
Greg.
You guys are both on the money. My goal is to not be the weakest link when producing an image, I would however not call it perfection. I'd prefer to be let down by the equipment, than not have ample skills to overcome challenges presented during processing. After all, lets face it, image processing is where it comes together. There's nothing worse than spending sleepless hours under the stars working hard to collect photons (or spending big dollars on rental scopes), if your image processing isn't capable of maximising the data's potential.
Indeed, I welcome all criticisms and feedback (good/bad). You don't need to be an experienced imager to provide a point of view. It can greatly assist the imager if you can technically articulate aspects of the image you like/dislike. Everyone has something different to offer and no-one should feel like they're incapable of making an impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
Hi Jase,
Great pic, when compared to this version (also taken with a 20" RC) I prefer your rendition of the nebula, it seems more natural and 3D, even though it may have slightly less detail (although the 9 hours of data capture didn't hurt him in that regard ) however I think the other version controlled the bright stars a bit better, unless that is because the halo's have been rendered a more violet colour that blends in with the nebula making it harder to see.
Thanks Andrew. Yes RJ's image is certainly special. He's produced some lovely colours and you're right, the details are certainly a notch well above my efforts - masterful work indeed. Not too sure about the violet colour. You could be right there that the blue halo from the star and the vibrant reds from the Ha have been mixed, reducing the overall impact of the halo. Thanks for taking the time to check out the image and make comment.
By the way what brand of filter were they? Astrodon's?
Usually Astrodon's reflect a lot in the green but also will reflect in blue.
Great filters but it is their achilles heel. The new generation Astrodon's have attempted to rememdy this weakness. Not 100% sure how well though.
Very fine image Jase, I think the stars have been handled very well indeed considering this a broadband image also.
Greg.....I have both sets of Astrodon filters....the Gen2 filters are, in my opinion, some way off from being Tru-Balance when compared to their predecessors....and I for one cannot tell any diffference between the two versions when it comes to halos...they both suffer quite significantly. Take a look at my post in the CCDWare forum of how these Gen2 filters are performing.
Quite some processing on this image, plenty of deconvolution blends and USMasking to tease out the structure along with some heavy noise reduction due to the limited data quantity – certainly could do with more.
The details and colors are unbelievable. It has so much depth as well and it's very smooth. Mind blowing stuff. 
Fat stars?
Its an open cluster which deserves some attention. Look at the resolution my friend.
and hey Fred who ya calling fat?? 
)
