Thor's Helmet (NGC2359)

EzyStyles (Eric) · #1 21-04-2006, 12:42 AM

Took this last week but finally got some time to process it since the weather here in Melb is quite bad

Under a full moon also.

11 x 84 second exposure stacked in registax. processed in photoshop CS2 auto dark subtracted.

Comments always welcome good/bad.

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #2 21-04-2006, 06:22 AM

Awesome Eric, very nice image scale too. Do you find it much better now the IR filter has been removed for images or do you still put it back in occasionally?

h0ughy (David) · #3 21-04-2006, 07:28 AM

excellent image, your best yet I would say without a doubt!

Robby · #4 21-04-2006, 08:41 AM

Dam that's nice... I agree with houghy, that's your best yet.
Good detail there, and nice & deep. Thor's helmet is a very dim object! You must have good dark skies too.
Cheers

tornado33 · #5 21-04-2006, 02:24 PM

great pic, it realy brings out thor's "wings"
Scott

iceman (Mike) · #6 21-04-2006, 02:27 PM

Great! What focal length is that? It's huge!

Looks maybe a little over-smoothed/clipped, and i'd prefer if the nebula were framed a bit better (ie: in the middle), but that's only if I had to be picky.

Brilliant stuff.

EzyStyles (Eric) · #7 21-04-2006, 03:29 PM

i saw your post over at the yahoo group andrew. goooo IIS

thanks. With the IR Filter removed, seems to me that im getting more details with close to true colours. Most of my images i hardly adjust the colours. The IR Filter gave me false colours such as ETA turned out green. I was quite surprised after processing it came out pretty good. One one though, i was hoping to get abit of the red in the wings.

@ mike: I should try to rotate the DSI so the pic is not on an angle

but im so use to finding objects from captured screenshots from that angle. Normally i try to match star to star from the images i have captured so far if i want to do it again. in regards to focal length, umm F/4 scope + DSI?

Thanks for your comments guys. really appreciated.

@ geoff/tony if you guys see this post. ignore the other post. got no idea why there were two copies. if one of the mods can delete that one would be great

ving (David) · #8 21-04-2006, 03:31 PM

thats bloody brilliant!

RB (Andrew) · #9 21-04-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ving

thats bloody brilliant!

Here, here.

Well done Sir.

Starkler (Geoff) · #10 21-04-2006, 07:06 PM

Looks like you have perfected the tracking part of it, but I notice that stars are still a bit blobby compared to other pics I see here.
Is this a limitation of the dsi, difficulty in focusing at f4 or can it be improved with collimation? I don't say this to have a go at you, far from it, but rather to look for ways to improve

Itchy · #11 23-04-2006, 09:43 AM

Starkler,
The DSI has a very small chip in comparison to a DSLR. The pixel size is similar I think (but I don't know for sure). The result of this is that it is like cropping a DSLR image to only the very centre of the frame. If you do that, you notice that the stars are just as bloated as in EZY's DSI pics.

It is the small chip that gives this image scale. It looks like he is shooting at long focal lengths, when in fact his scope is still performing at f4. It is just that he is recording only a small portion of the image the scope is able to see.

Hope this makes snese.

Cheers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

Looks like you have perfected the tracking part of it, but I notice that stars are still a bit blobby compared to other pics I see here.
Is this a limitation of the dsi, difficulty in focusing at f4 or can it be improved with collimation? I don't say this to have a go at you, far from it, but rather to look for ways to improve

Striker (Tony) · #12 23-04-2006, 10:27 AM

Spot on Tony...like usual.

EzyStyles (Eric) · #13 24-04-2006, 01:15 PM

Thanks for your comments and reply guys. Thanks Itchy for the explaination. I thought it was the chip size but wasn't sure also. Need to invest in a SBIG