I've always liked this galaxy. Its very photogenic and quite soft looking for a galaxy with fluffy star clouds and not a lot of dust that is visible.
I've done this before with the CDK17 and I may combine the data for a deeper image but its a fairly bright galaxy and the seeing wasn't bad and the AP scope was resolving detail very well.
7 hours 10 minutes Ha LRGB image. From my home observatory. Mostly taken last night.
A nice NGC300, Greg! It reminds me a lot of M33, which I'm processing at present.
Have you tried drizzle integration with that set up? Your image scale must be around 0.8 arcsec/pixel so I guess you'd need better than average seeing to make it worthwhile.
So am I, capturing detail in galaxies is unbelievable when you think about the scales and distances . I just need to get my gear to work
Yes, we are part mechanic, part IT expert, part artist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
A nice NGC300, Greg! It reminds me a lot of M33, which I'm processing at present.
Have you tried drizzle integration with that set up? Your image scale must be around 0.8 arcsec/pixel so I guess you'd need better than average seeing to make it worthwhile.
Cheers,
Rick.
Its very similar to M33. I haven't tried drizzle yet. That gives a gain in oversampled data right? I am probably more a little undersampled and on some nights spot on. 1 arc sec/pixel would be more comfortable and that would be a 6 micron pixel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placidus
Sharp, and as others have mentioned, HII regions showing nicely. It would be great to see if the combo with the CDK17 data worked.
I'll do a combine. I intend to combine RHA and CDK data once my 2nd filter wheel is repaired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
Fine image Greg. The Ha adds a real boost to the impact.
Not bad Greg and I too like the robust looking HII regions It's a deceptively faint bustardo I know, so some more exposure from a dark site would likely assist. Hopefully you don't mind me commenting though..the smoothing looks uneven across the frame and the stars, especially the bright ones, look kinda weird, sorta butchered (sorry ) Did you do anything to'em in the processing?
I haven't tried drizzle yet. That gives a gain in oversampled data right? I am probably more a little undersampled and on some nights spot on. 1 arc sec/pixel would be more comfortable and that would be a 6 micron pixel.
You want your image scale to be around a third of the seeing so it's not going to help you except on really good nights.
Drizzle works well at SRO with 1 arcsec seeing and a 2 arcsec/picxel image scale! Also helps with the AP140 and U16M even with average seeing in SE Qld.
The galaxy itself looks ok to me. The Ha regions stand out really well. However, I am not really sure about your stars, both the smaller ones and the brighter ones.
Not bad Greg and I too like the robust looking HII regions It's a deceptively faint bustardo I know, so some more exposure from a dark site would likely assist. Hopefully you don't mind me commenting though..the smoothing looks uneven across the frame and the stars, especially the bright ones, look kinda weird, sorta butchered (sorry ) Did you do anything to'em in the processing?
Mike
I've had this happen often. I forget to protect the stars with a star mask. Some steps in my processing must push the stars too hard and the bright ones already have a halo around them that gets pushed too hard.
I'll redo it and use star masks and add some more data as well. I was happy with the luminance but more is merrier. I really like this galaxy so I'll add some. This run of clear weather is helping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
You want your image scale to be around a third of the seeing so it's not going to help you except on really good nights.
Drizzle works well at SRO with 1 arcsec seeing and a 2 arcsec/picxel image scale! Also helps with the AP140 and U16M even with average seeing in SE Qld.
Cheers,
Rick.
I will definitely put that on the things to be done list. Is there a PI tutorial covering how to use the drizzle function?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
The galaxy itself looks ok to me. The Ha regions stand out really well. However, I am not really sure about your stars, both the smaller ones and the brighter ones.
Yes the stars on reviewing the image have taken some damage. I'll fix it with more data and some reprocess.
Here we go and this image to me validates the idea of combining the AP RHA data and the CDK17 They blend together well. The AP used the small SX Trius 694 12mm x 10mm sensor and the CDK the Proline 16803 camera with 36.4m square sensor.
This is a total of 15 hours and 20 minutes and taken from my home observatory. PME and AP1600 mounts. The CDK data is from about 3 years ago.
The stars look sharp and round, and the colour is rich and good, especially the warm tones in the centre and in the galaxy clusters toward bottom left.
The stars look sharp and round, and the colour is rich and good, especially the warm tones in the centre and in the galaxy clusters toward bottom left.
Thanks for that. As you know the stars are more robust from the 16803 with its 100,000 electron wells. That helps a lot as I often find the stars are easy to damage with the small well cameras.
It's a deceptively faint bustardo I know, so some more exposure from a dark site would likely assist. Hopefully you don't mind me commenting though..the smoothing looks uneven across the frame and the stars, especially the bright ones, look kinda weird, sorta butchered (sorry 
) Did you do anything to'em in the processing? 
