So far, due to weather, we have just the top central frame and one about a third of a frame bit below it. Hence the framing looks a bit odd, as we plan to add many more frames to left, right, and down, but not up.
Only one hour per channel per frame so far, so statistical data rejection is impossible.
Supernova 1987a is marked, toward the bottom right corner.
Placidus Palette: Hydrogen alpha unashamedly mapped to yellow and OIII to blue. Star colours not modified. No noise reduction.
We rather like the structure at bottom left, which from one point of view is an Aladdin's cave filled with jewels, and from another is the gaping jaws of a fierce taipan coming to eat the astronomer.
Aspen CG16M on 20" PlaneWave. As usual, all image processing software including the mosaic construction is written by Mike. Consequently this shot is something of a proof of concept.
Looking interesting so far MnT. Did you do a lot of decon on the image?
With regard to SN1987A, I can just now see some colour in the SN1987A. in my data. The two lobes you have there are actually two stars each side of the main remnant. It is coming up blue in my data. The stars are that hideous red colour at present. I have included a 100% crop for comparison.
Looking interesting so far MnT. Did you do a lot of decon on the image?
With regard to SN1987A, I can just now see some colour in the SN1987A. in my data. The two lobes you have there are actually two stars each side of the main remnant. It is coming up blue in my data. The stars are that hideous red colour at present. I have included a 100% crop for comparison.
Hi, Paul,
Not a "lot" of decon: FWHM was 4.4 pixels (2.4 sec arc) after stacking but before decon. After 5 rounds of Richardson-Lucy (with the constraint that the output should be no darker than the input) it was 3.7 pixels (2.0 sec arc) and that's where we stopped.
What I think our pic is showing with regard to sn1987a is that there's not a lot to see. I agree about the two stars.
Back in 1992 or thereabouts the ring was 1.6 arc sec across, and therefore not resolvable as importantly different from a star at our FWHM. My limited understanding is that what they were photographing back then was the "light echo" on pre-existing material, not an actual shock front.
I've spent about an hour hunting for newer images without success. There's an APOD video, but it's barely documented. It just says it's gotten bigger.
If anyone knows of something even remotely definitive, I'd love to be educated.
Wow big spider, looks bloody fantastic at small size once enlarged it still looks pretty good but the umm? that filter? err? what's it called? .. becomes a bit more evident, still, overall a great grand feel and once you have composed the mozaic it should look rather jaw dropping Very cool to have picked up SN1987a too
Wow big spider, looks bloody fantastic at small size once enlarged it still looks pretty good but the umm? that filter? err? what's it called? .. becomes a bit more evident, still, overall a great grand feel and once you have composed the mozaic it should look rather jaw dropping Very cool to have picked up SN1987a too
Mike
Thanks Mike! Next version will have no decon. Promise.
Up to four panels now. Realized we're making a big mistake. Some panels are done under essentially full moon, and other overlapping panels under new moon. My data rejection algorithm (for cosmic rays, hot pixels, bad columns, etc) is really struggling with this. Even after my best attempt at normalization it's chucking out say the entirety of the full moon panel as an "outlier". What we need to do is to only do data rejection only within panels (eg south-west corner), and only on sets taken under similar conditions. Probably avoiding the full moon would be a good idea too, but it's been so clear!
Thanks Mike! Next version will have no decon. Promise.
He, he I'm a pain huh? To me at least, seeing something (like a little noise) that's been left in an image, ie not processed out is quite ok but seeing detail or features that have been essentially added in via processing is quite another ..like Smallpox and with your help we can eventually eradicate this bad habit from the face of astroimaging, so help me Go..?..Big Bang
Quote:
Up to four panels now. Realized we're making a big mistake. Some panels are done under essentially full moon, and other overlapping panels under new moon. My data rejection algorithm (for cosmic rays, hot pixels, bad columns, etc) is really struggling with this. Even after my best attempt at normalization it's chucking out say the entirety of the full moon panel as an "outlier". What we need to do is to only do data rejection only within panels (eg south-west corner), and only on sets taken under similar conditions. Probably avoiding the full moon would be a good idea too, but it's been so clear!
Ah yes a significant stumbling block by the sounds of it...
once enlarged it still looks pretty good but the umm? that filter? err? what's it called? 
.. becomes a bit more evident, still, overall a great grand feel and once you have composed the mozaic it should look rather jaw dropping 
Probably avoiding the full moon would be a good idea too, but it's been so clear!
To me at least, seeing something (like a little noise) that's been left in an image, ie not processed out is quite ok but seeing detail or features that have been essentially added in via processing is quite another 
