Centaurus A - Deep Wide Field (and the jet)

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Gobsmacked is the only word I can use

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

Gobsmacked is the only word I can use

Thanks a lot Nik

Mike

[Atmos (Colin)]

This is where it gets complicated. The ESO 2.2m is a F/8 with what I can figure out as 15.27 micron pixels (125x125mm 67megapixel sensor). Mike has a F/5 with 9 micron pixels.

In faint nebulosity the 2.2m only collects an estimated 12.5% more light per unit area. This however doesn’t take into consideration QE, the reflectivity of the ESO mirrors or scatter (the FSQ would have about 95% transmission given high quality coating and minimal dust). Given ESO likely recoat their mirrors and there is likely several corrective lens in there as well, ESO could have a 20% transmission loss without taking QE of the sensor into account.

On non stellar objects ESO and Mike are neck a neck in depth BUT ESO 2.2M does that depth at 0.18”/pixel... which is pretty amazing!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Atmos

This is where it gets complicated. The ESO 2.2m is a F/8 with what I can figure out as 15.27 micron pixels (125x125mm 67megapixel sensor). Mike has a F/5 with 9 micron pixels.

In faint nebulosity the 2.2m only collects an estimated 12.5% more light per unit area. This however doesn’t take into consideration QE, the reflectivity of the ESO mirrors or scatter (the FSQ would have about 95% transmission given high quality coating and minimal dust). Given ESO likely recoat their mirrors and there is likely several corrective lens in there as well, ESO could have a 20% transmission loss without taking QE of the sensor into account.

On non stellar objects ESO and Mike are neck a neck in depth BUT ESO 2.2M does that depth at 0.18”/pixel... which is pretty amazing!

The camera is actually a focal reducing camera, back illuminated with a QE around 90%, and you've fatally ignored the seeing which is often as low as 0.4 arc sec for the 2.2 metre's location.......but assuming of extended objects the 2.2 metre is 10-20% better you expect to see h-alpha signal at the same locations.

You'd also expect to see the faint ESO image's galaxies (extended objects) in Mike's image...but we don't, hence I'd conclude by every measure, the ESO data is deeper.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Atmos

This is where it gets complicated. The ESO 2.2m is a F/8 with what I can figure out as 15.27 micron pixels (125x125mm 67megapixel sensor). Mike has a F/5 with 9 micron pixels.

In faint nebulosity the 2.2m only collects an estimated 12.5% more light per unit area. This however doesn’t take into consideration QE, the reflectivity of the ESO mirrors or scatter (the FSQ would have about 95% transmission given high quality coating and minimal dust). Given ESO likely recoat their mirrors and there is likely several corrective lens in there as well, ESO could have a 20% transmission loss without taking QE of the sensor into account.

On non stellar objects ESO and Mike are neck a neck in depth BUT ESO 2.2M does that depth at 0.18”/pixel... which is pretty amazing!

Ah Col, don't worry about arguing the toss, Peter just posted that roll over to denigrate, using yet another misguided and miss leading comparison, he has plenty of form in this regard. Heck even me just saying that will likely produce a contrite pompous rebuttle...it's just not worth it.

Mike

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

A fantastic image Mike - I have never seen such wide field around the Centaurus A and with so many stars and with such pleasing colours.

A few years ago I made an attempt at capturing the jet from Paddington in Brisbane and it wasn't an easy task for sure.

I personally really like long exposure deep images - keep them coming Mike

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ah Col, don't worry about arguing the toss, Peter just posted that roll over to denigrate, using yet another misguided and miss leading comparison, he has plenty of form in this regard. Heck even me just saying that will likely produce a contrite pompous rebuttle...it's just not worth it.

Mike

C'mon Mike.... you're acting like Trump when confronted with facts...the fact is there is also a very faint h-alpha region to the left of the main jet in the ESO data, that would should be visible in your image, if it was deeper, but is strangely missing in your image....I could load another animated gif, but that would be unproductive.

You took a nice image of Cent A....but I think the h-alpha data isn't correct/stretched too much/something screwy there. You can have a little "tanty" 'cos I pointed this out if you want.

Just calling it as I see it, without calling anyone names.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Slawomir

A fantastic image Mike - I have never seen such wide field around the Centaurus A and with so many stars and with such pleasing colours.

A few years ago I made an attempt at capturing the jet from Paddington in Brisbane and it wasn't an easy task for sure.

I personally really like long exposure deep images - keep them coming Mike

Cheers Suavi yes I remember your effort, was most excellent indeed.

Mike

[Bart]

Ha! Naaah, not showing off, just sharing the child like excitement of drinking beer and eating Maccas in the early hours of the morning, with all my friends

Thanks Bart

Mike

LOL! I loved the beer and burger count!

[codemonkey (Lee)]

Epic effort, Mike! Well done!

[alpal]

Fantastic super wide field image Mike.
I love what you can achieve with that FSQ106.


cheers
Allan

[peter_4059 (Peter)]

Super image as always Mike.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Bart

Ha! Naaah, not showing off, just sharing the child like excitement of drinking beer and eating Maccas in the early hours of the morning, with all my friends

Thanks Bart

Mike

LOL! I loved the beer and burger count!

Well Bart, what we do along with and to get our images, is worth sharing I recon, these things complete the scene, so to speak

Originally Posted by codemonkey

Epic effort, Mike! Well done!

Thanks Lee

Originally Posted by alpal

Fantastic super wide field image Mike.
I love what you can achieve with that FSQ106.


cheers
Allan

Yeah it is an amazing scope Allan and deserves its reputation

Originally Posted by peter_4059

Super image as always Mike.

Thanks Pete

Mike

[RobF (Rob)]

Gosh that's a lot of sky and a lot of data.
Beautiful image Mike.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Nice widefield, lots of dust around.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by RobF

Gosh that's a lot of sky and a lot of data.
Beautiful image Mike.

Cheers Rob, bit of work went into this one

Originally Posted by multiweb

Nice widefield, lots of dust around.

Sure is but veeeery faint

Mike

[topheart]

Hi Mike,
Congratulations on another landmark image!

Wow!!
Very well done!!
An awesome and sterling effort. Your manual dome rotator seems to be working well

Cheers,
Tim

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by topheart

Hi Mike,
Congratulations on another landmark image!

Wow!!
Very well done!!
An awesome and sterling effort. Your manual dome rotator seems to be working well

Cheers,
Tim

Thanks so much Tim, I was so happy to have revealed the extent of the jet, it is such a cool feature and hardly ever revealed

manual dome rotation is a lost art

Mike

[SimmoW (SIMON)]

A world class image Mike!

Very glad you called Peter out, he is the reason I rarely post here nowadays, in fact his comments were enough to totally demotivate me away from imaging, not that I really care what anyone says, but why bother when the rewards of something else like our farm or playing with our 12 new puppies are far more rewarding and less hurtful than dealing with privileged snobs or bored trolls with no life.

As for technical debates, you can see in Ward's pixel peeping gif that yes, the pro image has far higher resolution. But seems less sensitive to ha, with more subtle detail. My question is, if you are processing noise, why is it only along the jet? Hmm, that must be because it is picking up the ha....

Keep it up! I will too, just balancing life a little more

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by SimmoW

A world class image Mike!

Very glad you called Peter out, he is the reason I rarely post here nowadays, in fact his comments were enough to totally demotivate me away from imaging, not that I really care what anyone says, but why bother when the rewards of something else like our farm or playing with our 12 new puppies are far more rewarding and less hurtful than dealing with privileged snobs or bored trolls with no life.

As for technical debates, you can see in Ward's pixel peeping gif that yes, the pro image has far higher resolution. But seems less sensitive to ha, with more subtle detail. My question is, if you are processing noise, why is it only along the jet? Hmm, that must be because it is picking up the ha....

Keep it up! I will too, just balancing life a little more

Thank you Simon, yes it is a shame and should be called out, I agree.

Your assessment is 100% correct but I don't need to justify anything I do to someone like that.

Please don't give up on your hobby/passion because of this sort of stuff, as unnecessary as it is, there are plenty of people who see it for what it is and don't agree with it. I for one love seeing the breadth and diversity of imaging and imaging results on IIS and while I may not post to everyone (although I do to quite a few ), I look at virtually every image posted on IIS

Mike
12 puppies huh?...fun