M42 I know another. Mono with QHY9

[Hagar (Doug)]

5 X 5 minute images of M42 Compiled in IP3 and tweaked in CS3. I think I like this camera.

[Craig_L]

Nice and sharp Doug. Has wonderful detail in those outer reaches of nebulousity. Just imaging M42 at the moment but know it won't have that detail. Look forward to your finished result - when you get the filters.

Nearly bought the QHY8 but got got cold feet - too complicated for me.

Craig

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nice shot, Doug....that is an impressive camera, and only $250 more than the QHY8...not bad at all.

[kinetic (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

5 X 5 minute images of M42 Compiled in IP3 and tweaked in CS3. I think I like this camera.

WOW! Impressive Doug!

Steve

[iceman (Mike)]

Beautiful doug, loads of promise!

[mill (Martin)]

Looking very good and a lot of fine detail Doug.
When you get sick of that camera you can just give it to me

[AlexN]

blending on the trap could do with some work, its pretty obvious on my screen...

Tons of great detail throughout the image (very very nice for 5min subs)

imagine what its capable of with 15~30 minute subs! (read: Point it at the horse head!)

Well done doug.

[mill (Martin)]

Alex.
This is a 5x5 Minute picture stacked.
You cant blend anything in the trap with those exposures
I think Doug is just showing what the camera is capable of

[AlexN]

ahh but you can Martin.. With a CCD it takes a LONG exposure to completely kill the trap. So you open the stacked 5x5min image twice, stretch one agressively, and stretch one very gently, then blend them.. trap saved. I've done it before with the QHY8 using 5 min subs, the QHY9 is a bit more sensitive, so maybe 5 min subs would have burned close to the core.. but if you look at Dougs image - the area around the trap has two distinct lines surround it, I assume these are where he's done exactly what I just described... That said, I could be wrong, and if that is the case, then I will ask, what are those two hard gradient lines surrounding the trap? perhaps where he selected the core area, and feathered it then inverted the selection and stretched the selected outer nebulosity, and the selection lines are now showing...

As you say - I dont think his point was to create a pretty picture, more likely trying to demonstrate the cameras abilities.. And I am just being picky because being picky gives the Doug something to work on

[mill (Martin)]

Aha!!
Thank you Alex
Learned something new

[kinetic (Steve)]

Originally Posted by mill

Aha!!
Thank you Alex
Learned something new

Another thought on this too....I also got a beautiful shot of M42 about a
month ago.....delicate detail right out in to the faintest parts (not as good as Doug's).
My point is, I thought I had burned out the core terribly.

Thing is, the detail was all still there, it was just the curve I had applied
made the faint stuff look good at the expense of the core.

When I went back to the original FIT (the full dynamic range ) and applied
another type of stretch, guess what....beautiful detail at the outer edges
and 4 Trap stars pop out in perfect detail too.

The detail was all there....shows the fantastic dynamic range of these
CCDs and the A/D converters in them, compared to lesser devices (ie
webcams etc).

In the hands of a beginner like me, I just wasn't making the thing sing
like others (like Doug) can .

Steve

[multiweb (Marc)]

Looks Great. Loads of details in that shot.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Thanks Fellas. I did play around with the core and stuffed it up. Next time I will spend a bit of time imaging some short exposures that can be blended in adequately.
To try and blend a reduced processed image of the same origin requires the core to be stretched enough to burn itself out to blend with the original. No value in that.

[gregbradley]

Good one Dougie!

Welcome to the KAF8300 club! An awesome chip to be sure.

Greg.