Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Messier 16, Eagle Nebula

Expand Messages
  • barry.schellenberg
    In May of last year I rented the 17 Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD from ITelescopes in Mayhill, New Mexico. I finally got around to processing the
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 3 2:10 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      In May of last year I rented the 17" Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD
      from ITelescopes in Mayhill, New Mexico. I finally got around to processing the
      data.

      As one would expect, it was pretty clean and a pleasure to process.

      I imaged through Ha, Lum, and RGB filters, so I put together some different
      combinations which can be found below:

      HaRGB Version: http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p81839294/h57086EDC#h57086edc

      Ha Version: http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p264248004/h57096E86#h57096e86

      Original RGB Version:
      http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p14536770/h57099604#h57099604

      LRGB Version: http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p833333387/h5709EE88#h5709ee88

      Luminance Version:
      http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p309790024/h5709BA50#h5709ba50

      I am open to criticism and would like to know which version you enjoy best.

      All the best,
      Barry
    • Stan
      ... OK, I ll get the nice image kudo out of the way and get to the criticism . It is a nice image and has many good things going for it. But that target
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 6 9:55 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- "barry.schellenberg" <barryschellenberg@...> wrote:
        > ... 17" Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD ...
        > http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p81839294/h57086EDC#h57086edc
        > I am open to criticism...

        OK, I'll get the "nice image" kudo out of the way and get to the criticism <g>. It is a nice image and has many good things going for it. But that target is a very popular object and those images do not especially stand out.

        When I read "17 inch Planewave" I got excited to anticipate what it could do with the "pillars of creation" but was disappointed by yet another low-res/wide-field pic. Maybe the data has much better resolution than the display pix but those display images could have (and have) been made with a small refractor. I was expecting something that might challenge an image I made several (12.5!) years ago with a 14.5" RCOS:

        http://www.stanmooreastro.com/M16.html

        Colorizing that target is a complete waste of time and effort. It's nothing but RED! That redness inhibits eye/mind ability to discern subtle contrasts and IMHO contributes nothing other than appeasing the color mafia. To your credit you do also show a monochrome pic but the tonalities are very harsh and waste monochrome's potential to reveal subtle contrasts. But I suppose that is all a matter of taste.

        Stan
      • jfmiller7
        So are the options to use a smaller chipped camera, or to crop the image (assuming the resolution is there)?   On a somehat related note, I am considering the
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 7 1:18 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          So are the options to use a smaller chipped camera, or to crop the image (assuming the resolution is there)?

           

          On a somehat related note, I am considering the advantages of adding a longer focal length scope like the 12.5" Planewave to my current STL-11000 vs. adding a smaller chipped camera with smaller pixels (8300) to a 6" refcractor.  I elaize normally aperture wins on the resolution front, but what about these two options? Seems that the pixcells per arcsecond are about the same.



          Sorry for getting off topic on the original image.

           

          thanks,

           

          Jim

          ----- Original Message -----




          From: "Stan" < stan _ ccd @...>
          To: ccd -newastro@ yahoogroups .com
          Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:55:52 AM
          Subject: [ ccd -newastro] Re: Messier 16, Eagle Nebula

           




          --- " barry . schellenberg " wrote:
          > ... 17" Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD ...
          > http :// astromarina . zenfolio .com/p81839294/h57086EDC#h57086edc
          > I am open to criticism...

          OK, I'll get the "nice image" kudo out of the way and get to the criticism . It is a nice image and has many good things going for it. But that target is a very popular object and those images do not especially stand out.

          When I read "17 inch Planewave " I got excited to anticipate what it could do with the "pillars of creation" but was disappointed by yet another low-res/wide-field pic. Maybe the data has much better resolution than the display pix but those display images could have (and have) been made with a small refractor . I was expecting something that might challenge an image I made several (12.5!) years ago with a 14.5" RCOS :

          http :// www . stanmooreastro .com/M16. html

          Colorizing that target is a complete waste of time and effort. It's nothing but RED! That redness inhibits eye/mind ability to discern subtle contrasts and IMHO contributes nothing other than appeasing the color mafia. To your credit you do also show a monochrome pic but the tonalities are very harsh and waste monochrome's potential to reveal subtle contrasts. But I suppose that is all a matter of taste.

          Stan




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stan
          ... Or publish the display image at full size, assuming it is resolved (sampled) well enough to do so. But it can be good to crop out uninteresting stuff, too
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 8 9:13 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- jfmiller7@... wrote:
            > So are the options to use a smaller chipped camera,
            > or to crop the image (assuming the resolution is there)?

            Or publish the display image at full size, assuming it is resolved (sampled) well enough to do so. But it can be good to crop out uninteresting stuff, too many imagers retain the full field whether or not it contains anything interesting (probably because they paid dearly for every pixel <g>).

            Over-reduction destroys real information, effectively blurring the image. But display images are often significantly reduced in order to hide poor resolution and/or insufficient S/N. Chronic reduction can be due to mismatched scope/camera/site, as is often the case for DSLR (overly small pixels that cannot be binned). That Eagle display image looks overly reduced (undersampled) but I don't know if it could withstand display at full size. If FWHM<=3.5 pix then go ahead and show it, but if it is >3.5 pix then it probably looks better moderately reduced (little or no real information is destroyed by such reduction).

            > I am considering the advantages of adding a longer focal length
            > scope like the 12.5" Planewave to my current STL-11000
            > vs. adding a smaller chipped camera with smaller pixels (8300)
            > to a 6" refcractor.

            Those are very different imaging regimes that are suitable for different purposes, targets, conditions and level of difficulty/efforts. The Planewave (used properly) can be a true hi-res instrument. The refractor is limited to semi-wide field and not truely hi-res. Hi-res imaging is difficult but the results can be remarkable and rare in amateur imaging. Medium-to-low-res is much easier but (for that reason) the results are often yet another "me too" pic.

            Aspherical reflectors are difficult to manage (esp collimation) whereas refractor are about as easy to use as is possible. So those paths are very different, both in terms of efforts required and results obtained.

            > Seems that the pixcells per arcsecond are about the same.

            You don't say the refractor's FL, but assuming it is no longer than f/8 then the 8300 will produce about 1"/pix. That is not hi-res but it can be used to good effect in mediocre seeing.

            The 12.5" f/8 with STL-11000 = 0.73"/pix, which is really a bit undersampled for hi-res. A better hi-res option might be the 12.5" f/8 with 8300 at 0.44"/pix. Though you might need AO to fully exploit those capabilities.

            Stan
          • Stan
            ... Although, your original configurations is less different because the Planewave/11k and refractor/8300 would have similar image scales. So the scope/cameras
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 8 11:18 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              > ... those paths are very different, both in terms of efforts
              > required and results obtained...

              Although, your original configurations is less different because the Planewave/11k and refractor/8300 would have similar image scales. So the scope/cameras would generally produce similar resolution, though the Planewave should be superior most of the time. And the Planewave would produce greatly enhanced S/N because it collects 4x more photons/sec than the refractor. So even if you are not that interested in hi-res the Planewave is still worthy of consideration.

              Stan
            • Ron Wodaski
              Two telescopes with the same image scale are not necessarily the same. In your case, the difference is in aperture. There are definite benefits to more
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 8 2:47 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Two telescopes with the same image scale are not necessarily the same. In your case, the difference is in aperture. There are definite benefits to more aperture!

                This is because a larger aperture collects more light - as Stan points out, that means each pixel gets more photons, and thus the SNR is improved.

                So even if they both would have the same image scale, the larger aperture would provide better data, or the same data in less time.

                Ron Wodaski



                On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:18 PM, jfmiller7@... wrote:

                >
                >
                > So are the options to use a smaller chipped camera, or to crop the image (assuming the resolution is there)?
                >
                >
                >
                > On a somehat related note, I am considering the advantages of adding a longer focal length scope like the 12.5" Planewave to my current STL-11000 vs. adding a smaller chipped camera with smaller pixels (8300) to a 6" refcractor. I elaize normally aperture wins on the resolution front, but what about these two options? Seems that the pixcells per arcsecond are about the same.
                >
                >
                >
                > Sorry for getting off topic on the original image.
                >
                >
                >
                > thanks,
                >
                >
                >
                > Jim
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > From: "Stan" < stan _ ccd @...>
                > To: ccd -newastro@ yahoogroups .com
                > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:55:52 AM
                > Subject: [ ccd -newastro] Re: Messier 16, Eagle Nebula
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- " barry . schellenberg " wrote:
                >> ... 17" Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD ...
                >> http :// astromarina . zenfolio .com/p81839294/h57086EDC#h57086edc
                >> I am open to criticism...
                >
                > OK, I'll get the "nice image" kudo out of the way and get to the criticism . It is a nice image and has many good things going for it. But that target is a very popular object and those images do not especially stand out.
                >
                > When I read "17 inch Planewave " I got excited to anticipate what it could do with the "pillars of creation" but was disappointed by yet another low-res/wide-field pic. Maybe the data has much better resolution than the display pix but those display images could have (and have) been made with a small refractor . I was expecting something that might challenge an image I made several (12.5!) years ago with a 14.5" RCOS :
                >
                > http :// www . stanmooreastro .com/M16. html
                >
                > Colorizing that target is a complete waste of time and effort. It's nothing but RED! That redness inhibits eye/mind ability to discern subtle contrasts and IMHO contributes nothing other than appeasing the color mafia. To your credit you do also show a monochrome pic but the tonalities are very harsh and waste monochrome's potential to reveal subtle contrasts. But I suppose that is all a matter of taste.
                >
                > Stan
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • jfmiller7
                Thanks very much for the info Stan. You are pretty close, the refractor is an F 7.3 ( TOA --150). I cannot afford to keep both the TOA and Planewave , so i
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 9 1:17 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks very much for the info Stan. You are pretty close, the refractor is an F 7.3 ( TOA --150). I cannot afford to keep both the TOA and Planewave , so i need to choose :-) 

                  thanks again,

                   

                  Jim 

                  ----- Original Message -----




                  From: "Stan" < stan _ ccd @...>
                  To: ccd -newastro@ yahoogroups .com
                  Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:18:21 PM
                  Subject: [ ccd -newastro] Re: Messier 16, Eagle Nebula

                   




                  > ... those paths are very different, both in terms of efforts
                  > required and results obtained...

                  Although, your original configurations is less different because the Planewave /11k and refractor /8300 would have similar image scales. So the scope/cameras would generally produce similar resolution, though the Planewave should be superior most of the time. And the Planewave would produce greatly enhanced S/N because it collects 4x more photons/sec than the refractor . So even if you are not that interested in hi-res the Planewave is still worthy of consideration.

                  Stan




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • barry.schellenberg
                  Stan, Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your point of view. I agree with your assesment of the disappointing wide field view this scope and camera
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 9 3:27 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stan,

                    Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your point of view. I agree with your assesment of the disappointing wide field view this scope and camera combination present. I too was hoping for a more detailed close up.

                    If you click on the top of my image where is says "Download", you will be able to zoom and view more of the subtle details. http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p264248004/h57096E86#h57096e86

                    Perhaps I could have displayed a cropped version to gain that effect to begin with. Keep in mind this is also only 125 total minutes of aquisition time. It could certainly use more.

                    Let me know what you think after you download and view the original image size and zoom in.

                    Best regards,
                    Barry


                    --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Stan" <stan_ccd@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- "barry.schellenberg" <barryschellenberg@> wrote:
                    > > ... 17" Planewave telescope with FLI PL6303E CCD ...
                    > > http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p81839294/h57086EDC#h57086edc
                    > > I am open to criticism...
                    >
                    > OK, I'll get the "nice image" kudo out of the way and get to the criticism <g>. It is a nice image and has many good things going for it. But that target is a very popular object and those images do not especially stand out.
                    >
                    > When I read "17 inch Planewave" I got excited to anticipate what it could do with the "pillars of creation" but was disappointed by yet another low-res/wide-field pic. Maybe the data has much better resolution than the display pix but those display images could have (and have) been made with a small refractor. I was expecting something that might challenge an image I made several (12.5!) years ago with a 14.5" RCOS:
                    >
                    > http://www.stanmooreastro.com/M16.html
                    >
                    > Colorizing that target is a complete waste of time and effort. It's nothing but RED! That redness inhibits eye/mind ability to discern subtle contrasts and IMHO contributes nothing other than appeasing the color mafia. To your credit you do also show a monochrome pic but the tonalities are very harsh and waste monochrome's potential to reveal subtle contrasts. But I suppose that is all a matter of taste.
                    >
                    > Stan
                    >
                  • Stan
                    ... That s better, though the display is still a bit too undersampled (reduced) for my taste. But it does begin to reveal the resolution limit. Did you try
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 10 9:17 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- "barry.schellenberg" <barryschellenberg@...> wrote:
                      > ... click on the top of my image where is says "Download"
                      > http://astromarina.zenfolio.com/p264248004/h57096E86#h57096e86

                      That's better, though the display is still a bit too undersampled (reduced) for my taste. But it does begin to reveal the resolution limit. Did you try deconvolution on the original? The short-exp S/N may be too thin to support significant deconvolution but it's worth a try.

                      Stan
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.