Seeing is everything! Consequently, this image is mediocre because of the poor seeing in these parts lately . I gathered 12 hours of luminance data over 4 nights, in seeing ranging from 2.5 to 3.6 arcsec - bad at my image scale of 0.59 arcsec. I usually reject subs worse than about 2.5 arcsec seeing.
Just for the heck of it I processed everything I had that was better than 3.1 arcsec - 10 hours worth. Various sharpening techniques were carefully and laboriously applied to mitigate some of the poor seeing effects, but the result is not convincing IMO. The average result was expected of course. Faint stars are either lost in the background or are faint fuzzy blobs. Higher signal detail and stars were smeared or bloated. Frankly, this image is beyond the limit of what sharpening can adequately address but ... when life gives you lemons ...
BTW, if you want to see a really good amateur image see Mike and Trish's (Placidus) masterful version and see for yourself what a difference good sky conditions makes.
Yeah looks pretty ok to me too Marcus ...bout the same as I got a couple'a years ago in average seeing. As you say seeing is everything, sometimes there isn't much you can do about it, even with clever sharpening techniques...but doesn't mean the image isn't worthwhile, so I hope you are still planning to get the RGB for it
Aahhh, you guys ... you're all too kind! At least the lemonade isn't too bitter then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Doesn't look too shabby to me, Marcus.
Cheers Rick!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
I would be totally thrilled if I could capture this galaxy is such detail
Thanks Suavi! The optimal seeing for my rig is about 1.8 arcsecs. I actually got some of that when collecting RGB for my 6770 galaxy group and in times gone by. Consequently, knowing what the rig can do in such seeing, I'm not easily satisfied with less!
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Yeah looks pretty ok to me too Marcus ...bout the same as I got a couple'a years ago in average seeing. As you say seeing is everything, sometimes there isn't much you can do about it, even with clever sharpening techniques...but doesn't mean the image isn't worthwhile, so I hope you are still planning to get the RGB for it
Yes, M&T's image is very good.
Mike
Cheers Mike! You know how it is with galaxies - there's no hiding from bad seeing and when you don't even get average seeing it's easy to be disappointed!
RGB on top of this? Lipstick on a pig maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometcatcher
Oh my goodness that's only 3 arc minutes across! I would be thrilled with something half that good.
Thanks Kevin! It's actually a good 9 to 10 arcmins across. Long FL (with good seeing) is required to do it justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff45
Looks good Marcus in spite of the shabby seeing lately. At Wiruna over the last weekend the best I got was 2.8" and most were over 3".
Geoff
Cheers Geoff! Commiserations on the conditions at Wiruna. Did you make any lemonade?
Last edited by marc4darkskies; 06-10-2016 at 07:07 PM.
Thanks Peter. I'd take a B- ... maybe a B at a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
That's really very good Marcus.
Its quite a bright exposure you have there as this is a really dim galaxy.
Greg.
Thanks Greg, it's as good as I can get it. Yes, it's a dim one alright so noise mitigation was also a challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Even with the bad seeing the detail in the centre of the galaxy is very pleasing. Yet it looks a bit better when zoomed out a bit BUT still very nice
Thanks Colin. Decon / sharpening is more effective on high signal areas so I'd expect the core to be a bit crisper. Don't forget as well that it's only 70% full scale ... that always makes an image look "better".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevec35
Yep - you can see the effects of the bad seeing but it's still an okay image IMO Marcus.
Cheers
Steve
Thanks Steve! My takeaway is that I at least managed to get out and do some imaging this lunar cycle. Processing a difficult dataset like this keeps me in practice too!
Sums it up nicely really. Every image can't be a new personal best, especially when you have no control over conditions. This is way better than any 7424 I've managed. Thanks for sharing Marcus.
Marcus, given the seeing, you've produced a superb image. Great depth, and beautifully processed.
Reckon it's worth adding some 2x2 binned colour (if it ever stops raining) because it seems to help differentiate stars and tiny distant galaxies.
Thanks M&T! You're quite right of course - adding colour can add definition as you suggest. Alas, the forecast means gathering RGB in this lunar cycle for this object is probably over. I'm leaning towards leaving it on my todo list until next season and moving on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF
Sums it up nicely really. Every image can't be a new personal best, especially when you have no control over conditions. This is way better than any 7424 I've managed. Thanks for sharing Marcus.
Cheers Rob! Agreed, achieving a PB is not required, but I would like every image to be on par though.
. I gathered 12 hours of luminance data over 4 nights, in seeing ranging from 2.5 to 3.6 arcsec - bad at my image scale of 0.59 arcsec. I usually reject subs worse than about 2.5 arcsec seeing. 
