A Battlestar in Cetus

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by atalas

Awesome work Adama!hey Mike,do astronomers believe galaxies C an D are interacting or does It just happen to look like that?

By - your - command

Good question, I did a bit of a quick search and while there is some stuff on Burbidges Chain of galaxies I didn't find anything specifically about the suspected galaxy connection..? My search wasn't exhaustive so there may still be something out there about it as it looks pretty real to me..?

Originally Posted by Rex

Really nice Mike, love the detail and colour.

Cheers Rex, me too

Originally Posted by RickS

Great stuff, Mike! Not sure how I missed this last night. The itty bitty galaxies add the icing to the cake

What? you not trolling IIS like you used to huh? Yes the galaxy chain caught me eye too, actually I could juuust spot two of them (A and D) visually through the new 12" Skywatcher from Terroux, required averted vision and moving them in the field

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

I wish I could be satisfied with my Skywatcher refractor. But, the grass is always greener...

Isn't it what ...I really want Marcus 14.25" Officina (now it's tuned)..?..his PME mount, MMOAG, errr? oh yeah and his AOL, ummm? and 3" rotator too...?..nup, that's all.. ah yes and his automated motorised dome

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Can't argue with that! Very cool Mike!

Buuut ... when I zoom into 133% it's better

actually I thought you would find it too colourful

Oi! I did post a 100% res of Burbidges Chain

Ah yes the 100% res debate..?..often (including your latest and fabulous NGC 253) I think a full size image of the full frame is just too hard to take in properly and the overall effect can be lost plus it shows the warts, which is perfectly fine, a wart is a wart not a death sentence.. but who wants to see the warts if they don't have too so I almost always find myself shrinking your full res images in my browser to really appreciate them horses for courses as they say but hey, post'em full res, all good we love'em

Originally Posted by Shiraz

lovely image Mike, and the icing on the cake is the small galaxy group - very neat.

Cheers Rayzor and I agree the chain of galaxies is really cool

Mike

[sjastro]

Nice image Mike.

NGC 247 is one of those objects that is deceptively hard to process.

Steven

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Isn't it what ...I really want Marcus 14.25" Officina (now it's tuned)..?..his PME mount, MMOAG, errr? oh yeah and his AOL, ummm? and 3" rotator too...?..nup, that's all.. ah yes and his automated motorised dome

Que? No reason to envy me - look at Mike B-J ... he has a much bigger one! Don't worry Mike, when you grow up you'll have good equipment too!

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

actually I thought you would find it too colourful

Personal taste issue - not worth mentioning.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ah yes the 100% res debate..?..often (including your latest and fabulous NGC 253) I think a full size image of the full frame is just too hard to take in properly and the overall effect can be lost plus it shows the warts, which is perfectly fine, a wart is a wart not a death sentence.. but who wants to see the warts if they don't have too so I almost always find myself shrinking your full res images in my browser to really appreciate them horses for courses as they say but hey, post'em full res, all good we love'em

Debate? OK. I don't hide anything in my images exactly because I'm striving for the best result possible with my equipment and because I'm imaging at high resolution. My bet is that there are others out there like me who get a kick out of seeing how high a resolution an amateur can achieve (from the outskirts of a big city at sea level). Yes, every nuance of my processing is there for all to see, so, if you can see warts on my images then mention them (even if by PM) so I can fix them and improve. I'm always trying to improve so if I know about a (reasonably significant) wart, I'll fix it.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Good stuff. Always post cool galaxy shots.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Nice image Mike.

NGC 247 is one of those objects that is deceptively hard to process.

Steven

Thank you Steve, nice is beige, so my image is beige...cool I like Beige

Que? No reason to envy me - look at Mike B-J ... he has a much bigger one! Don't worry Mike, when you grow up you'll have good equipment too!

Hey envy is not necessarily a bad thing, keeps us interested almost certain I'll never be able to justify that sort of expense to Angie I'm afraid ... what's the "Que" about?

Personal taste issue - not worth mentioning.

Pretty much my feelings about the insistence on posting full res and any minor warts, all good, there is more to an image than minor warts...and shrinking in the browser usually takes care of any anyway

Originally Posted by multiweb

Good stuff. Always post cool galaxy shots.

Ok I will try Marc

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Wonderful view there Mike, the main subject is nicely presented and the detailed background galaxies are a great feature. That connecting star stream is fascinating, clearly a complicated collision has happened in the 'recent' past. Often in deep galaxy images there are so many interesting background galaxies that would make awesome Hubble targets themselves, this interacting pair is definitely one of them. Thanks for the view

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Wonderful view there Mike, the main subject is nicely presented and the detailed background galaxies are a great feature. That connecting star stream is fascinating, clearly a complicated collision has happened in the 'recent' past. Often in deep galaxy images there are so many interesting background galaxies that would make awesome Hubble targets themselves, this interacting pair is definitely one of them. Thanks for the view

Sooooo, does all that translate to "nice image Mike" in forum reply

Seriously though, I was never really fussed with imaging NGC 247, like John Gleason said above I thought the galaxy was a bit Meah..but when I realised that I could frame it so with Burbidge's chain and that there was indeed plenty of detail to reveal inside NGC 247 and it all reminded me of a Battlestar being chased by Cylons, hey, I just had to have a go

Funnily enough.. there are a couple of other galaxies that I have been disinterested in imaging becasue I don't like how they look ( I know) namely NGC 613, 2442 and 1532..strange, dunno why I think I have some sort of problem ...I may of course change my mind

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Nice image Mike. Good colour and some nice detail in the dust lanes. Not sure why you are persisting with no darks as I can clearly see noise in your background.

Seeing looks to have been pretty reasonable from what you have there.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Sooooo, does all that translate to "nice image Mike" in forum reply

The large galaxy is a bit bland, certainly not because of your presentation of it but just because of its lack of distinctive features. I think in this image the background galaxies are much more interesting, but I agree the composition is nice

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I can clearly see noise in your background.

Oh no!!!! really?? arrrrrrg!! run for your lives! Paul can see some NOISE

Originally Posted by SkyViking

The large galaxy is a bit bland, certainly not because of your presentation of it but just because of its lack of distinctive features. I think in this image the background galaxies are much more interesting, but I agree the composition is nice

Yeah, bland featureless galaxies should be banned from images I'll say three our fathers and four hail Mary's and go straight to bed

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Oh no!!!! really?? arrrrrrg!! run for your lives! Paul can see some NOISE






Mike

Actually it is not SOME noise. You have a fair bit of noise, in the back ground and around the fringe of the galaxy too.

Since you are using short subs it would not hurt to either use darks or increase the number of subs or both, as it is clear to me if not a few others that as soon as you stretch the data the noise becomes apparent. This is where doing mega data as you quite like to belittle me over (like there is something wrong in doing that) comes into play. I am sure I don't need to inform you of signal to noise ratio. If you had sufficient subs to suppress the noise you could stretch without noise becoming apparent. It is a simple thing really and each object will demand different amounts of data collection to achieve that goal.

Surely the object of doing all this data collection is to produce noise free images, just like you were looking out of a portal at an object??

I am not sure the snide remark was warranted though.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Actually it is not SOME noise. You have a fair bit of noise, in the back ground and around the fringe of the galaxy too.

Cheers for that Paul ... I'll look in to it

I am not sure the snide remark was warranted though.

Wasn't a snide remark, just me being lighthearted, stop being so paranoid

In the end different imagers care about noise levels to different degrees, that's all... but thanks for your concern

Mike

[h0ughy (David)]

its a nice image Mike - don't quite see the galactic view you do but then the isolation out there might explain a few things...

on another note, it impressed the socks off me

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by h0ughy

its a nice image Mike - don't quite see the galactic view you do but then the isolation out there might explain a few things...

on another note, it impressed the socks off me

Cheers Houghy but really? You can't see the Battlestar Galactica scene..

Hmmm..?? ok THIS might help

Mike

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Cheers Houghy but really? You can't see the Battlestar Galactica scene..

Hmmm..?? ok THIS might help

Mike

well id be stupid if i said no now honestly couldn't see that earlier

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by h0ughy

well id be stupid if i said no now honestly couldn't see that earlier

Visualisation Perception is actually a trait, peoples abilities vary...Mike B Jones (Placidus) is at true genius level in this regard!

Mike

[gvanhau (Geert)]

Great Image Mike.

I Like the color and the tiny galaxies spread all over the background.


Geert

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by gvanhau

Great Image Mike.

I Like the color and the tiny galaxies spread all over the background.


Geert

Thanks Geert, I agree seeing little faint fuzzies everywhere is appealing

Mike

[Rod771 (Rod)]

Very nice Mike!

There's galaxies or Cylons everywhere in that background. I enjoyed scanning around image, lovely view! I didn't see Star Buck though .

[alpal]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Wonderful view there Mike, the main subject is nicely presented and the detailed background galaxies are a great feature. That connecting star stream is fascinating, clearly a complicated collision has happened in the 'recent' past. Often in deep galaxy images there are so many interesting background galaxies that would make awesome Hubble targets themselves, this interacting pair is definitely one of them. Thanks for the view

Yes - I wish there were about 20 Hubble telescopes out there
instead of one they are retiring.
There must be a million interesting galaxies that we'll never see at 0.1 arc second resolution.