The Eye of Sauron

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Tolkien or Mexican? Humm....

Old dog, new tricks.

The link is here

Nup, don't like it - gave me a sore neck! Say, is there an obscurely named PI function to rotate a field 90 degrees?

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

...
... and re-mount the RC!

Idle threats! Glad to see the WWF fad fading though!

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Say, is there an obscurely named PI function to rotate a field 90 degrees?

Menu Image>Geometry>Rotate... will do it. If you want an obscure method then there are a few choices. PixelMath would be an entertaining one

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by graham.hobart

That is an amazing view Peter. Very impressive.
Graham

Thanks Graham.

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Nup, don't like it - gave me a sore neck! Say, is there an obscurely named PI function to rotate a field 90 degrees?

Idle threats! Glad to see the WWF fad fading though!

Ha! I laugh at your taunt!

In PI...like in the Lego Movie... everything is awesome!

Process>Geometry>Fast rotation turns ordinary Mexican hats in Tolkien masterpieces, with just one click

[Octane (Humayun)]

My goodness, that is absolutely unbelieveable. :O :O :O

Fabulous work, there, sir.

H

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

awesome work Peter!!

[gregbradley]

A very nice Sombrero. Detail rarely seen.

Greg.

[clive milne]

Incidentally Peter, in your image it appears that M104 has a 'peanut' shaped halo surrounding the core. (Similar to NGC 5746).
It is quite a remarkable example of the processing technique required to reveal subtle, non-symetrical structure buried in an image with high dynamic range.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Incidentally Peter, in your image it appears that M104 has a 'peanut' shaped halo surrounding the core. (Similar to NGC 5746).
It is quite a remarkable example of the processing technique required to reveal subtle, non-symetrical structure buried in an image with high dynamic range.

While I try to "keep it real" when pushing the data, I'm always wary as to whether I'm introducing artifacts.

So the "peanut" is real? Seriously? I've never thought to check.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

A very nice Sombrero. Detail rarely seen.

Greg.

Appreciated Greg

Originally Posted by rustigsmed

awesome work Peter!!

Ta. Lego rules

Originally Posted by Octane

My goodness, that is absolutely unbelieveable. :O :O :O

Fabulous work, there, sir.

H

Thank you , but nah.....just plain Yoghurt
(...Spaceballs fans probably would appreciate this )

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

While I try to "keep it real" when pushing the data, I'm always wary as to whether I'm introducing artifacts.

So the "peanut" is real? Seriously? I've never thought to check.

The light diffracted from the nucleus of the galaxy (by the spider vanes) will be roughly aligned with the peanut lobes. There is one sure way to confirm or deny whether it is a diffraction artefact or not... rotate the ota by 45 degrees and give it another go. Or just use the RH and see if it still there.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Tolkien or Mexican? Humm....

Old dog, new tricks.

The link is here

There is a serious scientific question in your image about the size (big?)(small?) of the bulge component of M104!

Galaxy Photometrists are still arguing about the nature and the size and the number of the spheroidal morphological component/components of this galaxy:
- how big is the bulge?
- how big is the halo?
- Or are the bulge and the halo, taken together as a unit, a single morphological component?

Cheers,
Robert

Astronomers have had similar problems with the bulge vs. the halo of our nearby neighbour M31 .

The resolution of these conundrums is usually found by separating out the various components of a galaxy....... by means of their constituent stellar orbits, stellar ages, and stellar heavy-element enrichments.
_____________________

Also muddying the waters in this regard is the fact that some galaxies also have very thick (broad) disk components.
______________________

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

There is a serious scientific question in your image about the size (big?)(small?) of the bulge component of M104!

Originally Posted by clive milne

The light diffracted from the nucleus of the galaxy (by the spider vanes) will be roughly aligned with the peanut lobes. There is one sure way to confirm or deny whether it is a diffraction artefact or not... rotate the ota by 45 degrees and give it another go. Or just use the RH and see if it still there.

Thanks for your insight gentlemen.

I have used the RH on M104...but found the focal length was simply too short to provide any decent image scale...hence didn't persist with it.

Might be worth re-mounting the RCOS to see what gives

[LewisM]

The detail is amazing - I studied the image for quite some time identifying as many background GX's as I could.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Fabulous image for sure, has to be one of the best M104's out there. Awesome work Peter!
Did you use PI drizzle integration?

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

That's some impressive detail in the dust lane. And with 2008 data. Blimey. I didn't even have a DSLR in 2008.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Rod771

Very very nice Peter, well done!
That's unbelievable!

As I said

No one can beat the Advanced Chilean Robotic 32" Telescope.

But - Peter has come close with this latest pic although
the one on their website is not at full resolution.

here:
http://www.chart32.de/images/phocaga...umb_l_m104.jpg

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alpal

As I said

No one can beat the Advanced Chilean Robotic 32" Telescope.

But - Peter has come close

Well..I can say the Germans probably didn't have to contend with the light dome of 4 million Sydney-sider houses... or there abouts

I think the photographic term is: red brick-veneer-ial disease.

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

That's some impressive detail in the dust lane. And with 2008 data. Blimey. I didn't even have a DSLR in 2008.

The STL11002 + AOL I was using at the time remains a very capable system. With good seeing the AO was producing raw data that was tight as...err...some to do with fish.. comes next

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Fabulous image for sure, has to be one of the best M104's out there. Awesome work Peter!
Did you use PI drizzle integration?

Thanks again Rolf..but, sorry, no drizzles were integrated or harmed during the making of this picture.

Originally Posted by LewisM

The detail is amazing - I studied the image for quite some time identifying as many background GX's as I could.

Many may have shifted.... perhaps into the red....

[atalas]

Fine work Peter.