PIER-14 IC4592-Blue Horse Nebula

Hi, 

Just a follow up after speaking to the guvnor about it. 

The attached image is basically what one would start from, after calibration, cropping and stretching. The only additional process in the attached image being some noise reduction. Even with only half of the data collected so far there is scope to process it into a reasonable image. I'm sure someone like the guvnor could make a pretty decent one. There is more data to be collected and when received I'll post an updated image. 

I had mentioned earlier in this thread, that subject to approval from the guvnor, I'd be more than happy to have this data shared with the Syndicate members. I was kind of hoping that this would be an acceptable compromise for now to all of the members interested in this, and that the current submission and planned second pane to capture the ears could be cancelled and postponed until next year.

This would help with the pier queue which I'm sure will be added to in the coming weeks. There is currently just under 170 hours still to be collected, which would increase if data needs to be recaptured. Comments welcomed. 

Cheers, 

Ray 

This is the result from pier 11 with a OSC camera. This represents half of what has been booked, but still does give an idea of the fov. The framing does come very close to the snout, but does not appear to cut anything off. This image is centred at DEC -19 24 00 so taking one frame at DEC -19 11 15, as suggested, will lift the snout a bit while removing the equivalent amount from the top. 

This image has been calibrated, slightly cropped, background extracted using ABE in pixinsight and noise reduction applied. Finally it has been stretched.

Cheers,

Ray

Hi Manuel,

That's okay, they were 30 x 180s for all 3 filters. I'll submit that shortly.

Cheers,

Ray

Thanks a lot Ray!

Cheers

Manuel

Hi Manuel,

That's okay, they were 30 x 180s for all 3 filters. I'll submit that shortly.

Cheers,

Ray

Thanks Manuel for the suggestion.

We were kind of hoping that some data would have been collected last night, but alas the algorithm chose what it thought best. I dare not argue. :)

I agree to go with the original RGB exposure times but too lazy at the moment to find out what they were. Does anyone know off the top of their head what they were and maybe submit them, or, let me know them and whether or not they would like me to make the submission.

Best regards,

Ray 

It did try but we had a weird failure about 2/3am with the mount which caused it to park up and not image another sausage for the rest of the night. Otherwise it would have take 66% of the data set. So a frustrated Steve :(

Still these things do happen from time to time so I can only try!

Steve

 

Hi Steve, well things happen ... let's hope for tonight ...

Hi Ray, I will find out tonight/tomorrow morning (when I am back home) what the RGB parameters were and get back to you all.

Cheers

Manuel

 

Thanks Manuel for the suggestion.

We were kind of hoping that some data would have been collected last night, but alas the algorithm chose what it thought best. I dare not argue. :)

I agree to go with the original RGB exposure times but too lazy at the moment to find out what they were. Does anyone know off the top of their head what they were and maybe submit them, or, let me know them and whether or not they would like me to make the submission.

Best regards,

Ray 

It did try but we had a weird failure about 2/3am with the mount which caused it to park up and not image another sausage for the rest of the night. Otherwise it would have take 66% of the data set. So a frustrated Steve :(

Still these things do happen from time to time so I can only try!

Steve

Thanks Manuel for the suggestion.

We were kind of hoping that some data would have been collected last night, but alas the algorithm chose what it thought best. I dare not argue. :)

I agree to go with the original RGB exposure times but too lazy at the moment to find out what they were. Does anyone know off the top of their head what they were and maybe submit them, or, let me know them and whether or not they would like me to make the submission.

Best regards,

Ray 

Update :

If anyone looks at syndicate submissions for pier 14 right now and wonders what I've done, blame it on, or rather, thank Steve. :) He made a great suggestion to submit it right away to make use of the skies right now and while the moon is not yet going to interfere. I agreed so have done so, but have limited it to initially collecting luminance data, 3 hours worth.

Tomorrow when there is more time for discussion on the RGB exposures, then that can be submitted then.

Cheers,

Ray 

Good morning everyone,

that is *super* news! Many thanks Steve!

As to the RGB channels, should we collect the same numbers and durations as in the original submission?

Kind regards

Manuel 

I agree with Richard to go with that. It gives the best option so far. Capture a better aligned first pane, and if time allows complete the mosaic by submitting the second set of coordinates. 

That's my vote, so assuming that Manuel also agrees :), I make that 3 votes out of 3.

Cheers guys, 

Ray 

 

I do of agree ... of course.  

Cheers

Manuel

Update :

If anyone looks at syndicate submissions for pier 14 right now and wonders what I've done, blame it on, or rather, thank Steve. :) He made a great suggestion to submit it right away to make use of the skies right now and while the moon is not yet going to interfere. I agreed so have done so, but have limited it to initially collecting luminance data, 3 hours worth.

Tomorrow when there is more time for discussion on the RGB exposures, then that can be submitted then.

Cheers,

Ray 

I agree with Richard to go with that. It gives the best option so far. Capture a better aligned first pane, and if time allows complete the mosaic by submitting the second set of coordinates. 

That's my vote, so assuming that Manuel also agrees :), I make that 3 votes out of 3.

Cheers guys, 

Ray 

Hi All,

It is a shame we are having problems with this target it would make a great image. 

Given where we are today, I would support Ray's suggestion of a single frame. We are much more likely to get something that way. The two-pane option is better from a framing and completeness point of view, but we run a bigger risk of not getting a viable image before the window closes.

The single frame captures the main features the way Ray has framed it. So that is my preference.

However, if most people want to attempt the two-pane mosaic, I am OK with that.

 

Thanks for your feedback Ray and Richard,

I have pushed the "luminance" on the Telescope simulator and think that a single frame taken this way will cut the poor horse's ears off and bump its snout ...  So I have a compromise to offer:

a. Priority 1: single frame with a little bit less ears, and a clear snout -- would make for a nice image.

b. Priority 2: the lower pane to complete the ears. This can be done if conditions OK, else we can ask for it in 2023 and then augment our single-pane image.

Here are the new coordinates that would enable this solution:

Pane 1	16 14 27	-19 11 15
Pane 2	16 14 27	-21 01 39

What do you think? Acceptable compromise?

All the best

Manuel

You are right. That is a very nice compromise. I am happy to go with that. I like solutions where there is a Plan B if things don't go as we hope.

Thank you for your efforts on finding a way forward with this intriguing target.

Thanks Richard and Steve for your rapid responses. I may have an alternative but inferior compromise. This however would not impact upon this pier.

Much will depend upon the data I receive back from pier 11 and how good it turns out. Last night 3 of the 4 hours I requested were captured, however, according to the weather site I use, there was almost 100 pcent high clouds. Not good for something like this particularly when low in the sky as well.

This job is the frame I just attached but using the OSC on pier 11. It will not be as good as that taken on pier 14, but, better than nothing. When it completes and I get a chance to process it and bears a slight resemblance to a horse, I'll post the image. I'm sure that Steve wouldn't then mind sharing the dataset with the members. 

Please don't put too much reliance on this and still let us know your thoughts. 

Cheers, 

Ray 

 

 

Hi Ray, Richard and Steve,

just posted a compromise option ... what do you think?

Cheers

Manuel

Hi All,

It is a shame we are having problems with this target it would make a great image. 

Given where we are today, I would support Ray's suggestion of a single frame. We are much more likely to get something that way. The two-pane option is better from a framing and completeness point of view, but we run a bigger risk of not getting a viable image before the window closes.

The single frame captures the main features the way Ray has framed it. So that is my preference.

However, if most people want to attempt the two-pane mosaic, I am OK with that.

Thanks for your feedback Ray and Richard,

I have pushed the "luminance" on the Telescope simulator and think that a single frame taken this way will cut the poor horse's ears off and bump its snout ...  So I have a compromise to offer:

a. Priority 1: single frame with a little bit less ears, and a clear snout -- would make for a nice image.

b. Priority 2: the lower pane to complete the ears. This can be done if conditions OK, else we can ask for it in 2023 and then augment our single-pane image.

Here are the new coordinates that would enable this solution:

What do you think? Acceptable compromise?

All the best

Manuel

Thanks Richard and Steve for your rapid responses. I may have an alternative but inferior compromise. This however would not impact upon this pier.

Much will depend upon the data I receive back from pier 11 and how good it turns out. Last night 3 of the 4 hours I requested were captured, however, according to the weather site I use, there was almost 100 pcent high clouds. Not good for something like this particularly when low in the sky as well.

This job is the frame I just attached but using the OSC on pier 11. It will not be as good as that taken on pier 14, but, better than nothing. When it completes and I get a chance to process it and bears a slight resemblance to a horse, I'll post the image. I'm sure that Steve wouldn't then mind sharing the dataset with the members. 

Please don't put too much reliance on this and still let us know your thoughts. 

Cheers, 

Ray 

Hi All,

It is a shame we are having problems with this target it would make a great image. 

Given where we are today, I would support Ray's suggestion of a single frame. We are much more likely to get something that way. The two-pane option is better from a framing and completeness point of view, but we run a bigger risk of not getting a viable image before the window closes.

The single frame captures the main features the way Ray has framed it. So that is my preference.

However, if most people want to attempt the two-pane mosaic, I am OK with that.

Hi everyone

Ray - if you could nudge Peter about the blue channel so he can see what's happened that would be awesome :)

As for me tweaking things behind the scenes, I have no issue with that, just give me some notice but I think we have more than enough to do get this one done

Steve

Thanks Manuel for this suggestion. 

I hadn't appreciated that there was still one last opportunity to complete a mosaic so I'm grateful that you took the time to look into this. It will be a bit of a compromise due to the camera angle, not something we can do anything about though, and something is often better than nothing.

There is now a question of how many of the Syndicate members will read this and respond giving the go ahead. Without this I don't think Steve would be able to act on it. That is essential. 

The main objection will likely be the impact this would have on all the other jobs. My understanding is that when such a prioritisation is done, no other jobs will be undertaken for the night. I'm sure Steve will correct me if I have that wrong. With declining hours in which we will be able to capture data, already many jobs queued up already, we really need a response from everyone. 

I can offer a compromise if that might be more acceptable to everyone, just a single pane. This will therefore be captured in half of the time. Picture attached. 

Thanks again Manuel for taking the time to look further into this and offer us your better alternative, however, I'm not hopeful that we will receive feedback in time given the general lack of responses we've had in the past. I hope that I'm wrong. 

Best wishes, 

Ray 

This has turned into a bit of a disappointment on two fronts. Something we all missed was the assumption made that the camera was vertical. It is not. Using a vertical/portrait orientation in Telescopius and then applying the coordinates it gives but with a horizontally oriented sensor, results in a 50 pcent overlap of the 2 panes and a skinny looking horse vertically. 

---

The other problem is that the blue subs for the first pane, for some reason do not align properly anyway. I've found 10 subs that do not appear to overlap with any of that pane at all, while the remaining 20 only align by around 25 percent of the pane. That is the westward 25 percent. That makes it impossible to create a blue stack right now. Many of the subs for the other filters are affected by the usual suspects. 

---

I was looking forward to this. That's a couple of hours scratching my head trying to fathom out what was going on I'll never get back. 

• What to do next guys? 

 

 

Dear Ray and Florent,

I have thought about this for a while, hence the delay in responding. Regarding the what next question, I have a couple of comments and a suggestion, which I hope can meet with your approval.

a. There is still a window to image the Blue Horse in the coming month. Actually, starting May 22 (+/- one day), such a window would open given the Moon curve and the location of the site.

b. We can use 1x2 mosaic given the ~0°/180° angle of the camera. Using a 20% overlap will be fine.

c. In this configuration (0° angle), it will be a tight fit, hence I have modelled the FoV using a -2° and a +2° angle to optimize the centre of the image. As you can see in the attached Picture1 (the yellow frame is identical in all three versions), the fit is tight, but still achievable (crop is already accounted for). 

d. The coordinates of this model are (Pane, RA, DEC):

e. Maybe we could ask Steve to prioritize this for the dates mentioned above.

What do you think? Should we do this?

Best wishes

Manuel

This has turned into a bit of a disappointment on two fronts. Something we all missed was the assumption made that the camera was vertical. It is not. Using a vertical/portrait orientation in Telescopius and then applying the coordinates it gives but with a horizontally oriented sensor, results in a 50 pcent overlap of the 2 panes and a skinny looking horse vertically. 

The other problem is that the blue subs for the first pane, for some reason do not align properly anyway. I've found 10 subs that do not appear to overlap with any of that pane at all, while the remaining 20 only align by around 25 percent of the pane. That is the westward 25 percent. That makes it impossible to create a blue stack right now. Many of the subs for the other filters are affected by the usual suspects. 

I was looking forward to this. That's a couple of hours scratching my head trying to fathom out what was going on I'll never get back. 

• What to do next guys?