Ngc6726 - Page 2

lazjen (Chris) · #21 28-07-2016, 08:55 AM

Very nice image. How dark are your skies?

How much disk space did you use with this? Including your flats, darks and intermediate files? I can see the need to buy hard disks on a frequent basis!

Also, it might be time to update your sig again?

codemonkey (Lee) · #22 28-07-2016, 04:50 PM

Great shot Ray, but I expect nothing less from you! :p

Maurice · #23 28-07-2016, 10:36 PM

That's a lovely result...!
Great work.

regards
Maurice

PS How does the 1600 camera performs when binned....?

Shiraz (Ray) · #24 28-07-2016, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traveller

Very nice Ray, well composed and exposed!
Bo

thanks very much Bo. Glad you liked the composition - it was hard to get this collection of objects into a reasonably nice looking frame and I was a little uncertain of the result - appreciate your comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazjen

Very nice image. How dark are your skies?

How much disk space did you use with this? Including your flats, darks and intermediate files? I can see the need to buy hard disks on a frequent basis!

Also, it might be time to update your sig again?

Thanks very much Chris. Skies vary a bit, but I think they are generally around Vmag21/arcsec2. The total disk space needed to get to this image was ~37GB - only use flat and bias, since dark calibration isn't necessary with this camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by codemonkey

Great shot Ray, but I expect nothing less from you! :p

Hi Lee. thanks very much - this is a fun camera eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice

That's a lovely result...!
Great work.

regards
Maurice

PS How does the 1600 camera performs when binned....?

Appreciated Maurice - thanks. I haven't tried it with hardware binning, but understand that it is not the best. There is apparently an on-board bottleneck that limits the bit depth to 10 bits when hardware binned. However, there is a good case for software binning with such low read noise. For example, at gain 50, software binning would yield a 4mP sensor, 7.6 micron pixels, read noise of ~5eRMS, well depth of ~50,000 e and vanishingly small dark current - it would be a very competitive narrow field camera for a larger scope.

Maurice · #25 28-07-2016, 11:33 PM

"............ However, there is a good case for software binning with such low read noise. For example, at gain 50, software binning would yield a 4mP sensor, 7.6 micron pixels, read noise of ~5eRMS, well depth of ~50,000 e and vanishingly small dark current - it would be a very competitive narrow field camera for a larger scope."

hmmm....... I was hoping that it would be the case......

thanks
Maurice

silv (Annette) · #26 29-07-2016, 01:10 AM

An illustration for a fairy tale. Romantic like a flower bouquet.

I googled the NGC number and I found this image of a 60 hours!

exposure.
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/NGC6726MPmosaic.html

Although the overall impression is clearer/sharper in that version, I prefer yours actually because of its softness which is like story telling instead of slamming the facts on the table.

The top blue nebula in the shot from 2007 looks more "windy", swirly than yours and I think that doesn't come from missing details due to less exposure. This looks as if the 'storm" there has changed in the past 9 years. What do you think?

Shiraz (Ray) · #27 30-07-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silv

An illustration for a fairy tale. Romantic like a flower bouquet.

I googled the NGC number and I found this image of a 60 hours!

exposure.
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/NGC6726MPmosaic.html

Although the overall impression is clearer/sharper in that version, I prefer yours actually because of its softness which is like story telling instead of slamming the facts on the table.

The top blue nebula in the shot from 2007 looks more "windy", swirly than yours and I think that doesn't come from missing details due to less exposure. This looks as if the 'storm" there has changed in the past 9 years. What do you think?

Thanks Silv. I deliberately tried to convey the softness of the clouds, so appreciate your comments. The image you linked to is a very fine one, but it has been processed to enhance local contrast variations, so it looks a little bit "harder".
I understand that this region is about 500 light years away and it is huge, so I think that it is unlikely that any changes in the structure would be visible over 9 years - unless the gas and dust is changing incredibly rapidly. Regards Ray

billdan (Bill) · #28 30-07-2016, 04:37 PM

Wow that is really smooth Ray, I just compared yours to mine and its chalk and cheese. You have much better resolution and smoothness than mine for roughly the same exposure time. The camera is sure a winner.

Regards
Bill

Shiraz (Ray) · #29 01-08-2016, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billdan

Wow that is really smooth Ray, I just compared yours to mine and its chalk and cheese. You have much better resolution and smoothness than mine for roughly the same exposure time. The camera is sure a winner.

Regards
Bill

that's very generous Bill. I would not have said the images were "chalk and cheese" different, but the high inherent sensitivity of the mono 1600 is definitely an advantage.

regards ray

billdan (Bill) · #30 01-08-2016, 10:52 AM

I wish someone would make an APS-C sized (24x16mm) version. I would be the first man in the queue to buy one.

SkyViking (Rolf) · #31 01-08-2016, 06:24 PM

That's stunning Ray, a really fine image of this beautiful region. The globular makes for a nice contrast too.
I couldn't squeeze the glob into my FOV when I did my version, really wish I had a large FOV sometimes... Thanks for the view

Rod771 (Rod) · #32 02-08-2016, 08:39 PM

Wow! Stunning result, Ray! Well done!

Stevec35 (Steve) · #33 03-08-2016, 11:42 AM

I'm a bit late in responding Ray. Nothing much to say except - well done sir!
It's a stunning result.

Cheers

Steve

Shiraz (Ray) · #34 06-08-2016, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyViking

That's stunning Ray, a really fine image of this beautiful region. The globular makes for a nice contrast too.
I couldn't squeeze the glob into my FOV when I did my version, really wish I had a large FOV sometimes... Thanks for the view

thanks very much Rolf. this image is nowhere near as good as yours, but it is the first time I have managed enough data to even get an image at all, so am pleased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rod771

Wow! Stunning result, Ray! Well done!

thanks very much Rod!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevec35

I'm a bit late in responding Ray. Nothing much to say except - well done sir!
It's a stunning result.

Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve. thanks for your comment - appreciated.

Regards Ray