Just sharing some initial data for the new project.
H-alpha data has been captured over two nights in Proserpine with 105 mm refractor and lightly processed.
Weather and time permitting, will chase OIII and SII over the next few weeks.
I nearly did not bother with setting up because of the moon being quite bright at the moment and because of the proximity of the DSO on the sky to the moon on Friday night.
This is a good object in Ha, so intricate with lots of nooks and crannies, nice. Yes even with really narrowband filters you were doing a bit of thrill seeking with so much Moon nearby
This is a good object in Ha, so intricate with lots of nooks and crannies, nice. Yes even with really narrowband filters you were doing a bit of thrill seeking with so much Moon nearby
Mike
Thank you Mike.
It is my first attempt at this DSO, so it has been a nice surprise to see how dynamic and turbulent it is, even in the moonlight. Also, it has been the first time for me to collect 7 hours of data per night - I am loving having unobstructed views on the sky. And lastly, it was the first time for me to notice an asteroid in my data. All in all, a worthwhile exercise in spite of the moon glare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde
Looking good Suavi. Some really nice details there.
Thank you Pete - glad you like it. I tried to cook Ha data very lightly, and hoping for a few more clear nights in the coming weekends.
... looks a tad soft though.
Maybe consider sharpening it up a tad in the final process...
Suppose God took a photo of some clouds and patchy mist, and some stars between and through the stars. In said image, we should expect that the stars are razor sharp, and if there are two stars very close together on the sky, up to the seeing of say 1.5 or 2 seconds of arc, we should hope to see them as two separate objects. However, the clouds and patchy mist should not have sharp edges. They should look cloudy and misty.
If a supernova then went off to one side of the cloudy mist, that should generate sharp bubble-like shock fronts, and a perfect image would show sharp edges at the shock fronts, but not elsewhere.
I get very puzzled by what folk mean by "it looks a bit soft". Do they mean it is out of focus? Clearly that is not the case here. Do they mean that there is a grey fog across the image? That is certainly not the case here, but if one were photographing actual grey fog, one would expect to see it in the resultant image. Do they mean that there are no sharp edges? In an astronomical image, if the stars are pin-point, that would just mean that there were no shock fronts here. That is not a defect. It is not something to fix.
Suppose God took a photo of some clouds and patchy mist, and some stars between and through the stars. In said image, we should expect that the stars are razor sharp, and if there are two stars very close together on the sky, up to the seeing of say 1.5 or 2 seconds of arc, we should hope to see them as two separate objects. However, the clouds and patchy mist should not have sharp edges. They should look cloudy and misty.
If a supernova then went off to one side of the cloudy mist, that should generate sharp bubble-like shock fronts, and a perfect image would show sharp edges at the shock fronts, but not elsewhere.
I get very puzzled by what folk mean by "it looks a bit soft". Do they mean it is out of focus? Clearly that is not the case here. Do they mean that there is a grey fog across the image? That is certainly not the case here, but if one were photographing actual grey fog, one would expect to see it in the resultant image. Do they mean that there are no sharp edges? In an astronomical image, if the stars are pin-point, that would just mean that there were no shock fronts here. That is not a defect. It is not something to fix.
Spot on Mike. There are always parts of nebulae that are soft and diffuse when other shock fronts or features are a lot sharper. This can be seen very clearlyin eta carina and Orion M42 periphery. If you process the field as a whole without the use of localised sharpening you can see this very obviously.
Thank you Mike and Trish for explaining what should we expect in an astro image if we want to preserve some real nature of nebulae. And thank you Marc for the examples. I tend to be very cautious with noise reduction and any means of highlighting/sharpening features, but sometimes go crazy with the colours
I was just looking at your image again and comparing it against some data that I got last night and asking myself why yours has SO MUCH more detail and contrast than mine did. Then I checked that you had 14+ hours against my piddly 45 minutes
I was just looking at your image again and comparing it against some data that I got last night and asking myself why yours has SO MUCH more detail and contrast than mine did. Then I checked that you had 14+ hours against my piddly 45 minutes
So, for now, yours is my benchmark
I didn’t expect a good result because data was collected with 90% full moon but in the end it turned out okay
Very tidy! 
