A Sid on NGC3576, star work.

Bassnut (Fred) · #1 28-01-2010, 06:01 PM

I added 10hrs Ha to it (20hrs 3nm Ha total), took some RGB exposures and developed a painfull way of inserting RGB stars at Ha size (a mix of standards off from the net, each of them alone left artifacts). Star colour aint flash, but better than the boring white, purple fringed ones I normal get

.

Much more neb extension was there, but it just made it messier and messier. Its hard to pick a compromise between depth and asthetic qualities. The Tarantula is similar in this regard.

A starless version was easy, just click the star layer off

, but ill leave that out, a bit old hat now

http://fredsastro.googlepages.com/NG...full;init:.jpg

DavidU (Dave) · #2 28-01-2010, 06:43 PM

What a beauty ! Very vibrant

Garyh · #3 28-01-2010, 07:52 PM

Hey that`s one nice image Fed!
Don`t know what color palette you used but it has worked nicely.

EddieT (Eddie) · #4 28-01-2010, 08:36 PM

Geeze Fred, thats incredible.
I've never seen so much detail in 3576 !
Well done!

CoolhandJo (Paul) · #5 28-01-2010, 09:50 PM

Nice one Fred. Great colour and contrast.

Paul Haese · #6 28-01-2010, 10:13 PM

Nice work Fred. It looks to be an interesting nebula.

AlexN · #7 28-01-2010, 10:22 PM

Nice Fred... Your FOV on this target is VERY VERY different to mine

haha...

Looks like SHO pallet to me?

You've done a nice job on the RGB stars.. there doesn't appear to be too much in the way of halo's..

Bassnut (Fred) · #8 29-01-2010, 05:41 AM

Thanks Dave, Gary,Eddie, Dr Paul, Paul and Alex. yes its is the SHO pallet. As usual, you look at it next day and now it looks a bit noisy, ah well.

This small FOV seemed a good idea at the time, but its just too hard, takes too long, I think the FL will go back in........ and I get a bigger cam, mmmmmm.......the 6303 still looks attractive?.

AlexN · #9 29-01-2010, 06:33 AM

mmm, the area looks really interesting in this field of view, but it is tight... Have you considered doing an image of the top of the "loops" as I call them, would be only a few arc min north of where your image is centered.. I reckon that would make an interesting shot too...

The 6303 is about the most attractive camera for your setup with regards to keeping a high QE, not changing your imaging train too much and giving a wider FOV. Will the increased pixel size make too much difference to the resolution though? Its only 1 micron bigger, but at this sort of FL that can make a difference.

I assume you would go with the NABG 6303?

Bassnut (Fred) · #10 29-01-2010, 07:09 AM

Funny you should say that Alex, I was thinking of a mosaic to get the loops in. Although a small FOV is a bit different, I just end up just missing other attractive object features with a lot more effort and exposure time at a lower percieved quality (viewed full frame). Then of course the question arises of a bigger cam to get the same result without mosaicing. The 6303 at 9u pixels even with a .67 reducer is 1.23 arc/sec pixel image scale, a bit undersampled perhaps, but acceptable. At f9 its 0.83 arc/secs which is fine. A 6303 QE is lower, is expensive and would require a new filterwheel/filters and all that palava though.

I had some comments like "what the hells that" too, its not immediately obvious at this croped FOV of a large object what the object is, so it looses some asthetics by not being familiar to a viewer. Planetary nebs would more suitable.

Im beginning to think very NB, NF in urban skies is a bit hard and limited for average results damb it.

AlexN · #11 29-01-2010, 01:27 PM

Oh yeah, the 6303 is 9um pixels, For some reason I was thinking it was 7.8.. Yeah you're losing a fair bit of resolution if you go for that. and as you say, even then, at F/9 you're going to struggle to fit things in..
If you were to go for the STL6303E, its got the built in CFW, would support the rest of your imaging train too (AO/RGH/MOAG etc..) Although as you say.. big money, really big money when you add filters.. Spending big money to go down in resolution and QE all for the sake of a larger FOV sounds pretty silly..

On the topic of it not being immediately recognizable due to the FOV, I'd see that as a positive rather than a negative. It gives you a lot of flexibility when it comes to how you want to frame a target, and how which area you want to focus on... Take the rosette for example, you could do a stunning close up of the "twister" In M16 you could show off the pillars, or alternatively, just for something different, go for a shot of the spire..... or the dust cloud just above the pillars. Millions of options...

Granted, shooting NB all the time can be painstaking, night after night after night capturing the same target for an image with quality that is ultimately limited by the local sky conditions...

Just know you have a supporter here... NF+NB is cool. Don't back down!