After some long processing sessions I managed to add on the extra 5hrs of data I gathered over New Years - essentially doubling what I originally had. Below you'll see small before (left) and after shots. Better depth and detail with less noise reduction but I think I've left enough "grain" to keep it looking natural.
well shot Marcus iam imaging this area at the moment if it comes close to yours wow,very nice.
AL
Thanks Al! Look forward to seing your rendition!
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy
wow huge difference, can even see it in the thumbnails
Yep, and it's a good illustration of what doubling your data does for you - I processed each version very similarly (from scratch) and stretched both as much as I could get away with. Thanks Houghy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF
Oh My! That's stunning.
Its as if someone turned the lights on Marcus. It sounded like you worked hard to get this one, and the effort really shows. Benchmark image for sure.
Cheers Rob! You got that right mate - one of the longest processing runs I've done and quite fiddly. Spent most of my time pulling out the signal in the faint areas. Also, the flats I get with my 1.6 extender are less than perfect so gradients were a problem (note to self - do better flats!!!!). Anyway, I'm glad it's done and I'm quite pleased with the result. I'm sure I'll go back and tinker, but not for a while!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolhandJo
Lovely image. Wonderful collies and depth to it.
Thanks Paul, glad you liked it. There aren't too many images around that go deeper, folks usually stop at the bighter refl nebs - even with 12" reflectors!! . I always use reference images as a reality check and the only one that went deep enough was http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100302.html - the deepest I've ever seen!
Great improvement Marcus, not that there was anything wrong with the first image. The level of detail has jumped imencely as well as the outer faint nebulosity. The entire image seems much brighter and more vibrant. Beautiful job.
Nice work Marcus, more detail particularly in the medium dark toned areas of the image and just a more overall illumination to give it more punch.
I think mike is the only one that gets too worried about the grain in an image..... Left over from film days I think,
My only query is when you put them side by side ( old and new) there is an area far left centre which has a different overall illumination, as a stand alone you probably wouldn't notice but side by side it suggests some reasonably aggressive masking. Minor point though as it is a pleasing image to look at.
Great improvement Marcus, not that there was anything wrong with the first image. The level of detail has jumped imencely as well as the outer faint nebulosity. The entire image seems much brighter and more vibrant. Beautiful job.
Cheers Doug - glad you liked it. The old version simply didn't have enough data to achieve the vibrance and depth I was after (clouds and moon have that effect).
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Good stuff. You can clearly see the difference in the amount of outer neb and the details in the core too. Nice.
Thanks Marc. You don't often see that core detail in other renditions and I was pleasantly surprised to find it! I had some faint outer neb in the old version but it wasn't as "reliable" as it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemy
Nice work Marcus, more detail particularly in the medium dark toned areas of the image and just a more overall illumination to give it more punch.
I think mike is the only one that gets too worried about the grain in an image..... Left over from film days I think,
My only query is when you put them side by side ( old and new) there is an area far left centre which has a different overall illumination, as a stand alone you probably wouldn't notice but side by side it suggests some reasonably aggressive masking. Minor point though as it is a pleasing image to look at.
Cheers Clive
Thanks Clive! Yes, I knew that patch wasn't quite right after I posted the first version (after referencing the deep APOD image) but I didn't bother to fix it until I got more data. The reason it was wrong in the first place is that I undercompensated for the effect of the residual gradient on this area after flattening (my flats aren't very good for my 1.6 extender).
Certainly a much better image and no where near as much noise control. I like this way better than the first image. I really like the overal illumination of the image and it looks to be much brighter than mine. Not sure about how much blue you have in the image, particularly on the lower left hand side of the image. It is as I have seen in numerous images a distinct red or Ha colour in this area. Are you shooting from a totally dark sky location?
Overall though a nicer image, I still think more data is warranted just like image.
Beautiful Marcus! This is a very tough target and your is excellent!
Tom
Thanks a lot Tom - appreciate that! Yes, it was way tougher than I expected!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Certainly a much better image and no where near as much noise control. I like this way better than the first image. I really like the overal illumination of the image and it looks to be much brighter than mine. Not sure about how much blue you have in the image, particularly on the lower left hand side of the image. It is as I have seen in numerous images a distinct red or Ha colour in this area. Are you shooting from a totally dark sky location?
Overall though a nicer image, I still think more data is warranted just like image.
Thanks Paul! No, alas my skies are not totally dark - but they're not bad. I believe the blue wisps at bottom left are real. I will undoubtedly tinker with mine some more in the coming weeks (as you will yours I'm sure) but right now the last image I want to play with is this one!!
Fabulous image Marcus! I am amazed at how much detail your TOA can get. Amazing.
As far as a bit of red in the lower left - there is the start of some small amounts of Ha that builds as you go further to the left. That is Barnards Loop, but where you have caught it it is very slight indeed as it is the last remnants of Barnards Loop by the time you reach M78.
A bit of Ha would pick up whatever there is there but its not much and probably not worth the effort. Or shooting at a totally dark site but again the red is more to the left and lower than your FOV.
Barnards Loops gets quite thick and heavy to the left of M78 but its about 3 to 5 of your FOVs before you'd get there.
Thanks a lot Greg! Yeah, wish my skies were darker - this image would look different if shot from say Wiruna - but no complaints here. I decided the same too - not enough Ha to warrant a nights work to gather the data. I'm very happy with how it turned out.
. I always use reference images as a reality check and the only one that went deep enough was 
