Been running into lots of issues lately, but I managed to cobble this together. 4.9hrs total, with only 1 of those being Ha. The Ha was also poor quality, with only 3/12 images being below 3" fwhm. When things are going well I can get down to about 1.6"
Feedback regarding the processing is very much appreciated.
Excellent colour and contrast Lee. NB stars are looking good. The image can take a stronger nonlinear stretch (about 50% brighter in the darks works well). That's a good thing.
1.5 sec arc on another day! Oh, such as youths dream of. We rarely do better than 1.8. Sob, whimper (but rarely worse than about 2.4 - Euchareena pretty consistent, just consistently ordinary).
Excellent colour and contrast Lee. NB stars are looking good. The image can take a stronger nonlinear stretch (about 50% brighter in the darks works well). That's a good thing.
1.5 sec arc on another day! Oh, such as youths dream of. We rarely do better than 1.8. Sob, whimper (but rarely worse than about 2.4 - Euchareena pretty consistent, just consistently ordinary).
Thanks mate, appreciate the feedback. I push the shadows some more, and used local histogram equalization to bring out that faint nebulosity a bit more.
I don't seem to get much in the way of mediocre... it's usually either excellent or terrible. I wonder whether I'm not getting the best out of my guiding and turn mediocre into bad...
Anyway, I've updated the original post with new versions. One for those that hate green.
Looks great Lee....nice tight stars,good detail,good edge sharpness and overall a very well balanced imaged
People might want to artificially pump up brightness in dark areas but you have to keep in mind the lower S/N there and the impact on the overall dynamic range of the image....4.5 hrs really ain't a lot of data for anything but the bright stuff.
That's a good image there Lee. Lovely tight stars and sharp. Overall though the image lacks a bit of impact - punch. Perhaps the low exposure is holding back bringing it up a bit more. Is this using the ASI1600?
Looks great Lee....nice tight stars,good detail,good edge sharpness and overall a very well balanced imaged
People might want to artificially pump up brightness in dark areas but you have to keep in mind the lower S/N there and the impact on the overall dynamic range of the image....4.5 hrs really ain't a lot of data for anything but the bright stuff.
Thanks Louie :-) Yeah, I'm always running short on data. In the coming months I'm hoping to get automated in which case I'll be more likely to do longer integrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
That's a good image there Lee. Lovely tight stars and sharp. Overall though the image lacks a bit of impact - punch. Perhaps the low exposure is holding back bringing it up a bit more. Is this using the ASI1600?
Greg.
Thanks greg :-) You're 100% right, it was a bit understated. I've updated the images with some better contrast. And some tweaked colour as well.
And yep, this was the ASI1600 -- I've only got that these days, in addition to the ASI174MM which I use as a guide cam.
Version C is currently my favourite Lee I like the brighter nebulosity, doesn't look like it has been black clipped like it does a bit in the D version... I don't mind the green
I think the slightly brighter version is very fine, Lee.
Thanks Mike :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Version C is currently my favourite Lee I like the brighter nebulosity, doesn't look like it has been black clipped like it does a bit in the D version... I don't mind the green
Thanks Colin :-) I was careful not to clip the data, but yeah, I think the ideal is somewhere in between those two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Yep that looks great Lee.
Greg.
Thanks Greg :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Nice result, Lee. Like Colin, I like version C better than D.
Thanks Rick :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
The data is really good and the high-res is simply sublime. I like both color renditions. Frame it and off to the poolroom.
Thanks Marc! I think I'll put some more time into this one so I can smooth it out a bit better with less noise reduction, then hopefully it'll look even better in full res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice
Lovely framing & processing Lee.
Version C is my favorite too..
How do you like the ASI1600mm camera?
Cheers
Maurice
Thanks very much Maurice! :-) Doesn't quite have the resolution that your recent (excellent!) work has.
I'm still learning to get the best out of the ASI1600, and I think I still have some spacing issues. So far I'm very happy with the decision to sell my Sony 674 based camera to get the ASI though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimmoW
Lovely Lee, good to see the cam doing so well.
Thanks Simon :-)
I learned a new (to me, looks like everyone else knew it hah) method for processing NB data, as described by Bob Franke. It's the info I was looking for a while ago and I'm happy with the result after applying it to this data. That's available as revision E on astrobin.
Nicely done Lee. Your obviously getting things sorted with your gear which is great to see. Rev E is the best bits of all the other versions put together, great job mate.
I caught another couple of hours of Ha last night. This time in much better seeing, and half of it without the moon up. I'll see how I go, but I'd like to get the total data collected on this in the area 10-15hrs.
Looks great Lee. It's getting out of reach for me now but i might have an image soon from my narrowband achro project data, nothing like 10 hours though.
Yeah, everyone is posting Eagles at the moment Lee, huh? but I don't mind and this a good one, with a slightly different take on the colour, lovely, the stars look nice and clean too
but I don't mind and this a good one, with a slightly different take on the colour, lovely, the stars look nice and clean too 
