Our goal here was to capture some of the really faint detail in the Bug Nebula, that is not normally shown in amateur images.
Hubble palette, but with stars whitened. 0.55 sec arc/pixel. FOV 9 min arc.
Red: SII 120 min (4x30 min subs)
Green: H-alpha 440 min (29x10+5x30)
Blue: OIII 390 min (30x10+3x30)
The top right hand butterfly wing shows a complex tracery of veins, which in most amateur images appear a black void.
Beyond the top right border of the wing is a series of blobs in H-alpha, the total effect being like an amoeba that has burst open, discharging unwanted matter. However, this blobby material may not be actually part of the nebula, as there is more of it scattered (very faintly) about the image.
Underneath the top right wing, and about 25% of the way toward 3 or 3:30 from the centre of the body, is a squashed ring structure, which on close examination seems to be made up of beads.
It is interesting to compare with the famous Hubble shot, and with an ESO La Silla shot using the 3.6 metre scope. These two professional shots differ greatly from each other, perhaps in part because they use different filters.
We don't come anywhere near even the ground based ESO image for sharpness of course, but we're mostly matching them for depth. The ESO shot shows some differences in the region of the antennae, which we guess is again due to different filters. Our antennae show more in OIII, theirs more in some other warm-coloured unspecified channel, and the morphology is different.
Original image here has an embedded colour profile and is very slightly less compressed.
Aspen CG16M on 20" PlaneWave. Processing using GoodLook 64.
Not bad. Slightly more detail than my C8 was showing visually the other night
A cracking image.
Thanks muchly. Great to hear from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Excellent work, M&T. A Bug to be proud of!
Interesting how the different versions vary. Ray/Shiraz also did an excellent image of this object that should be in the Deep Space forum somewhere.
Cheers,
Rick.
Thanks Rick, we are encouraged. Found Ray's excellent image. Other good ones by Geoff Smith, Paul Haese, and TopHeart. All very sharp, and all different!
Chasing smaller and fainter objects can be indeed very gratifying, excellent work M&T
Thanks Suavi. We're getting better at the "fainter" part. For the "smaller" part, we really need to get up enough courage to check the distance between the primary and secondary as part of collimation. To do that, we have to take the (very heavy and awkward) camera, guiders, and filter wheel off, and put in a Rhonchi grating, and then point to a bright star. Worried that the out of balance scope will fall on us. Might be safer to just try moving the secondary 1 mm in or out, re-focus, and seeing if the FWHM is better or worse. Good job for the full moon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross G
An amazing capture Mike & Trish, with an excellent description.
You may be lacking a several metre mirror and near perfect skies but wow Brilliant Bug MnT!
Thank you Colin!
We will hopefully have another crack at it one day when the dead rare 1.5 sec arc seeing comes back at the same time as the clouds are gone and the moon's not looking to see what we are up to.
We will hopefully have another crack at it one day when the dead rare 1.5 sec arc seeing comes back at the same time as the clouds are gone and the moon's not looking to see what we are up to.
I am a firm believer that every cloudy night has sub arcsecond seeing
Looking very impressive M&T.
You should be delighted with that result!
I wonder if a little adaptive sharpening wold help the image along?
I took the liberty of having a little play and it seemed to help, but it would likely be best done on your luminance layer.
Looking very impressive M&T.
You should be delighted with that result!
I wonder if a little adaptive sharpening wold help the image along?
I took the liberty of having a little play and it seemed to help, but it would likely be best done on your luminance layer.
Top stuff guys
Thanks so much, Andy. I had a play with both deconvolution and wavelet sharpening, and it does make it more contrasty but I wasn't completely happy. If we get some more clear sky with good seeing, we might try again after more exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Looks good MnT. Detail looks good too but I agree some sharpening could make it pop.
With my camera now away for repairs I am stuck with the version I have at present until I get it back. I find your image and mine very comparable.
Thanks Paul. Yes it's good to see that we're photographing the same thing. Yours is perhaps a bit sharper than ours, we might be a tiny bit deeper, but there's not a lot in it.
When exploring the Mandelbrot set, we can keep increasing the magnification without limit. Wish we could see more here. Star-ships fleeing to a more hospitable environment, perhaps.
Gee, that looks good guys, the detail is nice and subtle, colours look good too. I guess because it is so bright and well placed for us, t'is one of the more imaged planetary nebs in the southern skies but such an intriguing target, nice job
Gee, that looks good guys, the detail is nice and subtle, colours look good too. I guess because it is so bright and well placed for us, t'is one of the more imaged planetary nebs in the southern skies but such an intriguing target, nice job
Mike
Thanks muchly, Mike.
We've done three smallish PN's in the last month or so. Next target is going to have to be something bigger.
Fine details on what must be a tricky small target, I enjoyed the view. I guess the seeing makes a fair difference at this scale? I liked the imagination about the escaping starships too!
Fine details on what must be a tricky small target, I enjoyed the view. I guess the seeing makes a fair difference at this scale? I liked the imagination about the escaping starships too!
Hi, Andy! Agree that seeing makes all the difference on the little ones. I worry about those who take photos of Jupiter or Mars, which are smaller again, yet deliver astonishing detail. Pact with the devil, we suspect.
