Been trying to finish this off to break my long imaging drought but only managed to gather a bit more Lum in between clouds and gale force winds. It's still a mere 4.5 hours but it's starting to show the depth & detail I want. It needs about 8 hours Lum I think - 5101 is quite faint! Seeing wasn't as good as the first 2 hours of data but average FWHM was 2.1 arcsec over the two sessions after some weak decon.
In any case, I don't think there is a more beautiful galaxy field - it's truly gorgeous!! I can't wait to finish it off - hopefully before its season ends! Those of you who saw the original 2 hours version will notice an improvement in depth, detail and noise.
Well beggars canna be chosers in this game ladi so take what you get I recon and so far so good
As for being the most beautiful galaxy field - big call ...but meah, after all your trials and tribulations over the last reasonable while Marcus...heck, I'll agree with you
Mike
can see the decon still though ...not so much when viewed at 50-67% though .
Looking very nice Marcus. You must be thrilled to get some imaging action from this new beast. Yes seeing has been extremely poor most nights over the last week (I've been imaging most nights and most data was worthless).
Hi Marcus,
what a great test for the new RC360 -
would I love to have a scope like that!
It's come up very nicely indeed.
I can't wait to see the colour added.
Looking very nice Marcus. You must be thrilled to get some imaging action from this new beast. Yes seeing has been extremely poor most nights over the last week (I've been imaging most nights and most data was worthless).
Greg.
Cheers Greg! Yeah, I went out last night just before the gale and the showers - seeing was shocking. I need to move!
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Hi Marcus,
what a great test for the new RC360 -
would I love to have a scope like that!
It's come up very nicely indeed.
I can't wait to see the colour added.
cheers
Allan
Thanks Allan. Yes, I deliberately chose a galaxy field for just that reason. It will also test my rusty processing skills
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
...can too
Not a serious criticism of course, still looks good - the galaxies are a cool contrast to each other.
Mike
Thanks, but maaaaate!! I want you to critique my images! I'd really prefer though that you point out specificthings that you've noticed that I could improve upon. In this case there are no decon artefacts that I can see (and therefore fix) .
Also, there are 38 adjustment layers in the PS file, any one of which I might have screwed up. I often have to go back a few layers and fix stuff because of a careless application of a tool or action. I post full res all the time precisely because I can't tolerate (obvious) processing artefacts and take pains to avoid them. I also want folks to appreciate the detail. So if you do see a defect, tell me the specifics so I can fix it - don't assume you know what's caused it. There are folks out there that don't like real critiques, but I'm not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atalas
Great looking galaxy Marcus....look forward to seeing It finished.
Cheers Louie ... me too! I reckon this is one the most beautiful galaxy fields - not because of the show-pony galaxies, but because of the miriad faint ones in the background. Practically one out of every three white spots in this image is a distant galaxy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Also looking forward to the final result, Marcus...
Also, there are 38 adjustment layers in the PS file, any one of which I might have screwed up.
...really ...38 layers huh?...heck, I feel like a virgin
Seriously, what would I know anyway, my Fighting Dragons looks over sharpened to some (which is fine of course) but needless to say I can't see it , sometimes people see noise in others images too, that I can't or I just think is inconsequential and the list goes on..so, our eyes were meant to see things a little differently at times and our brains make different interpretations of what they see too I guess So, don't worry your fledgling Italian Stallion image is looking fine
...really ...38 layers huh?...heck, I feel like a virgin
... And that's just the Lum!! I take a very nuanced approach to my image processing! No sledge hammers for me (apart from the initial non linear stretch)!
That's really nice Marcus, looks promising As you said, it is a very nice field of galaxies. Tell me about the wind haha, wish it would stop! Hope the weather co-operates with you, look forward to seeing it completed.
Erik
Hmmmm, I wonder if the seeing was really bad for a couple of subs. The detail in the right hand galaxy is not well defined and looks blurred to me. Are you using focusmax or @focus for autofocusing? As also is the detail in the left hand spiral (though that is presenting as a more elliptical type). Star shapes also look a little out of round too, so guiding might not have been optimal and hence the blurring.
It might all be a once of thing, but I would have expected sharper detail from this scope. Just my opinion only.
That's really nice Marcus, looks promising As you said, it is a very nice field of galaxies. Tell me about the wind haha, wish it would stop! Hope the weather co-operates with you, look forward to seeing it completed.
Erik
Thanks Erik!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Hmmmm, I wonder if the seeing was really bad for a couple of subs. The detail in the right hand galaxy is not well defined and looks blurred to me. Are you using focusmax or @focus for autofocusing? As also is the detail in the left hand spiral (though that is presenting as a more elliptical type). Star shapes also look a little out of round too, so guiding might not have been optimal and hence the blurring.
It might all be a once of thing, but I would have expected sharper detail from this scope. Just my opinion only.
Thanks for looking Paul and appreciate the feedback!
No, nothing wrong with the galaxies that I can see (given only 4.5 hours of data) but the seeing was mediocre for the second 2.5 hour session (2.6 arcsec FWHM (at the limit of acceptability) as opposed to 2.1 for the first session) but I used the data anyway. As Mike said, beggars can't be choosers! I guess this is my lot for living where I do.
And yes, you are correct, I did have some minor guiding issues in the second session. Alas, shooting at 0.59 arcsec/pixel and posting at full res leaves me no place to hide! I'm not going to quibble with the current state of play though.
All up I'm very excited about how the scope will perform under good conditions (I've seen what it can do when seeing is 1.8 arcsec FWHM). I'm less excited about the frequency of such sky conditions though! That's why I'm in the early stages of planning for a move
Perhaps you should compare this with some other full res images on the web at the same image scale (and not taken from the top of a mountain)?
It sure is a beautiful part of the sky and this image is looking great for the imaging time. The detail in the face on galaxy in particular is very subtle - I think that you have captured it well, even the very faint outer arm. The stars may have very minor problems, but that does not really detract at all from the overall effect of the image. Agree that the real joy of the area is the density of galaxies - it is fascinating to wander around at high res.
Hmmmm, I wonder if the seeing was really bad for a couple of subs.
I went back and reviewed the subs I used. As it happens I didn't vet them at all (not sure why - negligence, impatience?) and there were 3 that shouldn't have been used (guiding artefacts & overly fuzzy). I did a quick combine without the bad subs and sure enough everything crisped up. I won't reprocess right now though because I need more data anyway. Good call anyway Paul - but don't let it go to your head!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
It sure is a beautiful part of the sky and this image is looking great for the imaging time. The detail in the face on galaxy in particular is very subtle - I think that you have captured it well, even the very faint outer arm. The stars may have very minor problems, but that does not really detract at all from the overall effect of the image. Agree that the real joy of the area is the density of galaxies - it is fascinating to wander around at high res.
Cheers Ray - yes, the fainter extents of both galaxies are starting to show through nicely and, once I get more data and am a bit more picky about the subs I use, the final result will be gorgeous (and sharp). Hopefully I won't have to wait until next year though. Skies are clear at the moment but the seeing has been horrible.
I went back and reviewed the subs I used. As it happens I didn't vet them at all (not sure why - negligence, impatience?) and there were 3 that shouldn't have been used (guiding artefacts & overly fuzzy). I did a quick combine without the bad subs and sure enough everything crisped up. I won't reprocess right now though because I need more data anyway. Good call anyway Paul - but don't let it go to your head!
Certainly not. I just thought it might be worth raising. I have been carefully looking at all my subs now to search for defects and have several times inadvertently included subs that I thought were ok but were in fact a little blurred either from guiding or focus. I look forward to see the reprocess.
...but meah, after all your trials and tribulations over the last reasonable while Marcus...heck, I'll agree with you 
...not so much when viewed at 50-67% though 
.
No you can't! 
.
So, don't worry your fledgling Italian Stallion image is looking fine 
but the seeing was mediocre for the second 2.5 hour session (2.6 arcsec FWHM (at the limit of acceptability) as opposed to 2.1 for the first session) but I used the data anyway. As Mike said, beggars can't be choosers! I guess this is my lot for living where I do.
