Quote:
Originally Posted by bmitchell82
Detail looks good there rob but i dunno your blue channel seems to be really vibrant you might have pushed it a little hard over all but thats just my opinion and if you like it like that  another cracker by the time you actually get to take new data youll be a processing genius |
Yes, I tried quite a while to get the outer arms looking less blue Brendan. There are 3 nights worth of data here of which only one was from dark skies and unfortunately time and weather didn't allow RGB collection, so perhaps I haven't tamed the colour cast from the pollution filter well enough. Hopefully will get more data for it in the future. All too often I'm happy to move on to another object rather than keep pushing a single project. Also depends a lot on family and horizon limitations too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemy
Even without a Ha channel, it stands out nicely
|
Thanks Clive - was a surprise for me too. Red sat has been pushed a bit mind you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevec35
That's a pleasing M83 Rob. I like the wide version best.
Cheers
Steve
|
Fair call Steve - I like to include a 2nd zoomed image where a link to a hi-res picture isn't given otherwise the 200kb jpg limit can be brutal to fine detail. Think I've pushed in further than need be here though and shown up some things that might better have been concealed
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I agree a very nice M83 and the widefield looks best and I like your processing.
In the close up there are some subs you've used that had some tracking errors that have affected the shapes of the stars but the widefield version you can't notice that at all.
Your filters must have good Ha response to pick up that much of the Ha in just LRGB.
Greg.
|
Good call on the RGB Greg. I certainly do need a decent number of subs to get the noise down AND help tame any minor tracking variations (which isn't the way it's normally supposed to work of course). I guess it's a bit of hallmark for my rig and techniques used. I wouldn't have stopped at only 3 R,G and B by choice. I actually hummed and hah'ed quite a bit about doing separate star processing. Theoretically I could have deconvolved or minimsed/eroded the stars to a more regular and circular shape as required, but in the end it didn't seem "honest". After all, the fine galaxy detail is also effected by the blur from my focuser and tracking. BTW, it's fascinating the modelling routine in Star Tools almost exactly predicts my overall star shape from the focuser overhang I have, mirror clips and secondary support vanes. I just don't want to start messing with it all unless I have stacks of time up my sleeve which is rarely the case.
I'm still using the "Orange Bright" filters that QHY9 supplies and really don't have anything else to judge against. Is it unusual to get that much Ha in red?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester
I like the view Rob, thanks.
|
Cheers Lester
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorW
Nice I like the widefield the best but the diffraction spikes stand out to much IMO on the larger stars
|
Thanks Trevor. I love diffraction spikes, but then I'm a true "reflector nerd" too I guess
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnight
Very nice Rob. Presentation is lovelly.
Darrin...
|
Thanks for commenting Darrin
