Jump to content


Photo

Orion Region 210mm Lens Redux

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

Really struggling with the color noise on this, trying to bring out the horsie throws all kinda noise at me, still, it shows way better than my 1st attempt. I need to really work on the masks so I don't loose the red in M42.
Still a work in progress but I wanted to share.

Canon XS unmodded
Tokina 70-210 SD, Nikon mount with EOS adapter (20 dollar lens!) @ 210mm F6
Piggybacked on LX3
60 1:00 subs and 60 darks
Stacked in Deep Sky Stacker and Processed in StarTools

Attached Files



#2 TimN

TimN

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1417
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:06 PM

Nice wide field Shawn. We usually see M42 and B33 imaged separately. This gives a nice overall perspective.

#3 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4633
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:35 PM

The horsehead is very difficult with an unmodified camera, especially with 60 second subs. I think you have a nice image going...maybe collect more data?

#4 mikotoy

mikotoy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 150
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2012

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

I love wide field images. I cannot wait to try my first one out in the near future.

Very nice image and with more data I'm willing to bet that $20 lens will be a very good investment.

#5 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Thanks guys!
I have only tried to combine data from different nights once before, it didn't go very well. I do have about a dozen subs from my 1st attempt at this. I will ty to use that data combined with above and maybe I will learn something this time. No break in the weather for the rest of the week so I plan to milk this data for all it's worth anyway. I have a guide camera coming soon and plan to try for some 3 or 4 min subs on this.
Terry, you are correct, I was happy B33 is plainly visible, although I had to cheat, that whole area was masked and red boosted/saturation to get it to show up. Tricky task to keep it looking semi-natural, 1st couple of times it stood out like a sore thumb!

#6 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:48 AM

Ok I am happy with this one now.
Spent some extra time on masks and star color, pretty happy with the way this one came out, even entered it into the monthly contest!
Larger version here: http://www.astrobin....l/24783/C/?mod=

Attached Files



#7 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4633
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:08 PM

I like the colors here. Good job!

#8 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:14 PM

Thanks Terry!
I think this is my best astropic to date. As mentioned, I plan to go out tonight and get more data. The dozen extra subs combination seemed to work pretty well. (Although the above pic did not have those subs) I hope to add another hour to this and see what I can get. was REALLY stoked to see a hint of the faint dusty structure in this area!

#9 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:21 PM

Well I am really bummed, I added 2 hours of 1:00 min subs and got almost nothing for it.
171 frames stacked and I thought for sure lots of improvement, nope, signal to noise looks almost the same, not worth the up all night effort for sure.

Attached Files



#10 nemo129

nemo129

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3108
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: WMass

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:45 PM

Don't sell yourself short. :D I think it is a big improvement over the original. You can see the Horsehead more distinctly as the ionized gas behind it is more evident. Overall the colors look nicer and brighter. Looks good to me. :waytogo:

#11 Dougal

Dougal

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2006
  • Loc: NC

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:44 AM

Looks clearer and brighter to me too. Nicely done!

#12 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

Thanks guys! I can see that it is better, but with 3 hours of integration, really thought the dusty bits would be more apparent. I can tell it's there if I convert the image to black and white, but it's hard to distinguish from the background gradients.

#13 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:35 PM

Ok I am really done this time...really...I mean it...no more....
185 subs, 3 hours and 5 min...just can't get that dust to come out.... Had some stacking issues with the lower left side, I think it's from poor alignment causing field rotation.
See larger size here:
http://www.astrobin.com/full/24783/D/?

#14 nemo129

nemo129

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3108
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: WMass

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:07 PM

Have you considered modding your Canon XS? You would certainly see more of the nebula if you did. I understand that you may not want to if you still want to do terrestrial photography, but you could use custom white balance to compensate on the "earthly" pix.

#15 Phil Wheeler

Phil Wheeler

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2005
  • Loc: 3 miles WNW of Celestron

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

The Tokina 70-210 lens is doing better for you than I would have expected. Zooms lenses generally don't do as well as primes. And shooting at f/6 (vs. f/2.8 with my Canon 200L) extends your exposure time significantly.

#16 Goodchild

Goodchild

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:36 PM

It's nice to see the HH in the same FOV as the Orion nebula. I never realized the HH was this big. Thanks for the pic.

#17 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5317
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:55 AM

Kirk I have thought about modding the camera, it's just not in the budget right now, maybe by the end of next year, lol.

Phil, I hear you on the primes, but they are proud of those things! I have an old Nikon 200mm F4, that was my 1st lens purchase, but it has some fungus or something behind the glass, right in the middle, causes a very soft image ,that's why I ended up with the Tokina, supposed to have super low dispersion glass, I just wanted a 200 or 300mm lens so I could start doing some widefield on a budget. I keep looking on KEH for a bargain grade fast lens, but you really can't match those L lenses. I plan to take this exact shot again with 4:00 subs, at 1:00 with my skyglow, the data is barley above the background noise.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics