The Eightburst Nebula in Vela - deep exposure

strongmanmike (Michael) · #1 25-02-2017, 01:59 PM

Man 4 clear nights out of 5 here in Canberra makes an astonomer very happy

so with favourable seeing prevailing on three of the 4 nights with one night truly excellent, I think my decision to shoot this tiny little critter with my rig paid off

This very deep image shows the rarely seen and full extent of the intricate shells and faint outer ionised gas envelope of NGC 3132 and at only about 1.5' X 1' in size it was a real test for my scope and the local seeing conditions! The intricacies revealed here in the outer envelope I could only find in one other image, taken by the CTIO guys with the PROMPT2 16" F11 RC at Cerro Tololo and I was able to confirm the capture of all structures...so I am quite happy with making myself sleep deprived over 5 days and still going to work

....

NGC 3132 The Eighburst Nebula (crop displayed at 200%)

Alternative colour palette to better show the extent of the OIII (blue) spread throughout the nebula: NGC 3132 Eightburst Nebula

To show just how small it is on the sky here is the full 38' X 32' un-trimmed un-cropped frame.

Hope you like

I last imaged this little bugger waaaay back in 2004 with my LX20012" SCT, I think there is a bit of improvement?.....

Mike
ps couldn't really see any signifcant pareidolia in this one...

Placidus (Mike and Trish) · #2 25-02-2017, 02:26 PM

Absolutely spantacular!

unhesitatingly.

We know from having had a couple goes at it ourselves that this level of detail is extremely difficult to achieve. We came nowhere close. Not only the finest internal detail, but super-faint outer shells that make it far more special and interesting.

alpal · #3 25-02-2017, 02:26 PM

That' looking great Mike - very deep.
I couldn't find the CTIO image - only the Hubble one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...f/NGC_3132.jpg

I notice you have gone deeper than Hubble as their pic doesn't show the outer shells.

cheers
Allan

glend (Glen) · #4 25-02-2017, 02:50 PM

Inspiring Mike. I have tried it and i know how small it is. Great detail

Atmos (Colin) · #5 25-02-2017, 03:14 PM

Magnificent Mike

Not sure what else to say but wow!

topheart · #6 25-02-2017, 03:46 PM

Just wonderful - best I've seen of this object Mike!!
Cheers,
Tim

RickS (Rick) · #7 25-02-2017, 06:27 PM

Super cool, Mikey

Andy01 (Andy) · #8 25-02-2017, 06:41 PM

Great job Mike, a rarely imaged, interesting object very well captured

el_draco (Rom) · #9 25-02-2017, 06:50 PM

I really like the full frame, un-cropped version. Very sharp!

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #10 25-02-2017, 07:58 PM

Spectaular Mike!!! I don't think I'll be getting this one through your finderscope.

Tony_ (Tony) · #11 25-02-2017, 09:45 PM

Magnificent Mike!

(Drops my effort to a new low level - thanks

)

Tony.

astronobob (Bob) · #12 25-02-2017, 11:05 PM

Absolutely extraordinary Mike - Major Credit to your work

strongmanmike (Michael) · #13 25-02-2017, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placidus

Absolutely spantacular!

unhesitatingly.

We know from having had a couple goes at it ourselves that this level of detail is extremely difficult to achieve. We came nowhere close. Not only the finest internal detail, but super-faint outer shells that make it far more special and interesting.

Ha ha Thanks M&T so glad you enjoyed this one...and here, cause you made me smile have another one of these

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpal

That' looking great Mike - very deep.
I couldn't find the CTIO image - only the Hubble one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...f/NGC_3132.jpg

I notice you have gone deeper than Hubble as their pic doesn't show the outer shells.

cheers
Allan

Thanks Allan the CTIO shot is here we gotta move to the Andes...we just gotta...

Quote:

Originally Posted by glend

Inspiring Mike. I have tried it and i know how small it is. Great detail

Cheers Glan, yes I was quite hesitant to have a shot in case I wasted my time in sheety seeing

and as Mr Murphys luck would have it

the first night was poor seeing...

which caused the slightly fuzzy bright stars...which I don't mind the look of actually, think Akira Fuji

..still..madly I had faith in my site and thought "ok sky gods I will take the colour data tonight then nah nah."

Luckily the next three nights were at least average to good with half of one night settling to pretty excellent seeing, so I gambled..and I won

take that seeing gods!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

Magnificent Mike

Not sure what else to say but wow!

Thanks a lot Col, it's a bit of a specky object huh? especially with all those wrinkly outer shells

Quote:

Originally Posted by topheart

Just wonderful - best I've seen of this object Mike!!
Cheers,
Tim

Yeah came out ok huh Timmy?

cheers dude

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickS

Super cool, Mikey

Cheers big ears

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy01

Great job Mike, a rarely imaged, interesting object very well captured

Thanks Andy, yes a tiny target like this takes some balls to bother shooting, especially without arc sec seeing but in the end I was pretty happy to finish with what I did

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_draco

I really like the full frame, un-cropped version. Very sharp!

Ha ha cheers Rom...yes, displaying full frame images at small size creates the illusion of being sharper..a good imagers trick

displaying 100% full res, or in this case 200% full res, is thrill seeker territory

Quote:

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

Spectaular Mike!!! I don't think I'll be getting this one through your finderscope.

No worries Kev, I only need my finder about twice in a typical evening of imaging (on start up and after a meridian flip), so plenty of spare time available

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_

Magnificent Mike!

(Drops my effort to a new low level - thanks

)

Tony.

Cheers Tony, naaah all images are to be enjoyed and respected

Quote:

Originally Posted by astronobob

Absolutely extraordinary Mike - Major Credit to your work

Thanks Bob so glad you like it, an impresive little blighter huh?

Cheers everyone

Mike

Stevec35 (Steve) · #14 26-02-2017, 12:39 AM

That's a fine NGC 3132 Mike. Well done!

Steve

strongmanmike (Michael) · #15 26-02-2017, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevec35

That's a fine NGC 3132 Mike. Well done!

Steve

Cheers Steve, I was very happy with the final result

Mike

codemonkey (Lee) · #16 26-02-2017, 03:01 PM

Wow, Mike... that's nuts given the size of the target. Great job mate!

alpal · #17 26-02-2017, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Thanks Allan the CTIO shot is here we gotta move to the Andes...we just gotta...

Mike

Hi Mike,
In the Andes the seeing would be better than your Dawes limit.
Your image compares very well.

Did you attempt to use 3 x drizzle?
If not there could be some more detail to be extracted!
I know for sure it helps on such a small target.

cheers
Allan

strongmanmike (Michael) · #18 26-02-2017, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codemonkey

Wow, Mike... that's nuts given the size of the target. Great job mate!

Cheers heaps Lee, yes, a very small target indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Mike,
In the Andes the seeing would be better than your Dawes limit.
Your image compares very well.

Did you attempt to use 3 x drizzle?
If not there could be some more detail to be extracted!
I know for sure it helps on such a small target.

cheers
Allan

Well Allan, a careful comparison shows essentially little difference in nebula resolution or depth between our images, (I have revealed a little more inside the inner ring perhaps?), other than they seem to have accentuated the very outer extended diffuse Ha halo a little more..? and I like their stars. I used no decon on my stars either, I only apply it to the nebulosity, sadly even after 13 years of using Astroart, I haven't mastered applying its decon filter to stars with a satisfactory outcome

...and I use no other image processing software other than PSCS3+

As for drizzle...well, to be honest, no idea about that, should look into it.

Mike

Atmos (Colin) · #19 26-02-2017, 03:57 PM

I've done testing with 3x3 drizzle and found that it doesn't help any more than a 2x2 drizzle apart from a lot of extra processing power. Just as easy to 2x2 drizzle and then increase image size, gives the same result

alpal · #20 26-02-2017, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Well Allan, a careful comparison shows essentially little difference in nebula resolution or depth between our images, (I have revealed a little more inside the inner ring perhaps?), other than they seem to have accentuated the very outer extended diffuse Ha halo a little more..? and I like their stars. I used no decon on my stars either, I only apply it to the nebulosity, sadly even after 13 years of using Astroart, I haven't mastered applying its decon filter to stars with a satisfactory outcome

...and I use no other image processing software other than PSCS3+

As for drizzle...well, to be honest, no idea about that, should look into it.

Mike

Hi Mike,
I use Drizzle in Deep Sky Stacker.
They explain it here:
http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/technical.htm

There is a mouse over picture if you click the 2 blue lines to the left of the picture.
They show only 2x drizzle & the resulting difference.

You have to use the custom rectangle to select only a tiny portion of the picture but
that's exactly what you have on your target.

I prefer to use 3 x Drizzle which means it will increase the size of
that small portion of your image by a factor of 9.
It really is magic & is the method they use on some Hubble images to
extract that bit of extra detail.
It's amazing that DSS offers it for free!

cheers
Allan