M31 with A-P1100GTO-AE mount, TEC 160FL, FRC, and QHY600M-PH camera


Peter Nagy
 

This is my first time imaging with my new QHY600M-PH camera. The mount used was A-P1100GTO-AE. It gets easier every time I setup and operate the mount. TEC 160FL APO with TEC FRC were used to capture the whole galaxy without mosaic. I’m surprised it was able to squeeze the whole galaxy at 990mm focal length (plate solved) with a very large QHY600M-PH sensor.

Andromeda Galaxy, M31 . RGB + Luminance. 0.78"/pixel image scale.

Chroma Red filter, 5 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Green filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Blue filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Lum filter, 18 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/3/2021.

Total 5 hours and 50 minutes from Reno, NV.

TEC 160FL APO F/7 with TEC FRC (f/6.2), Astro-Physics A-P1100GTO-AE GEM with absolute encoders. QHY600M. Sagitta OAG and Ultrastar autoguider, Starlight Instruments HSM motorized focuser.

Captured and automated with Voyager. Calibration and Post-processed with PixInsight.

High resolution image at: https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Peter


christian viladrich
 

Splendid and beautifully processed. Congratulations !

Christian Viladrich

Le 05/12/2021 à 16:59, Peter Nagy a écrit :

This is my first time imaging with my new QHY600M-PH camera. The mount used was A-P1100GTO-AE. It gets easier every time I setup and operate the mount. TEC 160FL APO with TEC FRC were used to capture the whole galaxy without mosaic. I’m surprised it was able to squeeze the whole galaxy at 990mm focal length (plate solved) with a very large QHY600M-PH sensor.

Andromeda Galaxy, M31 . RGB + Luminance. 0.78"/pixel image scale.

Chroma Red filter, 5 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Green filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Blue filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Lum filter, 18 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/3/2021.

Total 5 hours and 50 minutes from Reno, NV.

TEC 160FL APO F/7 with TEC FRC (f/6.2), Astro-Physics A-P1100GTO-AE GEM with absolute encoders. QHY600M. Sagitta OAG and Ultrastar autoguider, Starlight Instruments HSM motorized focuser.

Captured and automated with Voyager. Calibration and Post-processed with PixInsight.

High resolution image at: https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Peter


Roland Christen
 

Congratulations. You have a first class setup for imaging.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Nagy <topboxman@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2021 10:59 am
Subject: [ap-gto] M31 with A-P1100GTO-AE mount, TEC 160FL, FRC, and QHY600M-PH camera

This is my first time imaging with my new QHY600M-PH camera. The mount used was A-P1100GTO-AE. It gets easier every time I setup and operate the mount. TEC 160FL APO with TEC FRC were used to capture the whole galaxy without mosaic. I’m surprised it was able to squeeze the whole galaxy at 990mm focal length (plate solved) with a very large QHY600M-PH sensor.
Andromeda Galaxy, M31 . RGB + Luminance. 0.78"/pixel image scale.
Chroma Red filter, 5 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Green filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Blue filter, 6 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/1/2021.
Chroma Lum filter, 18 x 10 minutes, 1x1. 12/3/2021.
Total 5 hours and 50 minutes from Reno, NV.
TEC 160FL APO F/7 with TEC FRC (f/6.2), Astro-Physics A-P1100GTO-AE GEM with absolute encoders. QHY600M. Sagitta OAG and Ultrastar autoguider, Starlight Instruments HSM motorized focuser.
Captured and automated with Voyager. Calibration and Post-processed with PixInsight.
High resolution image at: https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Peter


--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Peter Nagy
 

Thank you Christian and Rolando.

I have processed M31 two different ways. The original is minimal processing. The second one is same as minimal processing plus increase contrast and tame the core of M31.

Blink between the first 2 images at higher resolution at:

https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Click on right and then left arrows back and forth to blink both images.

Which one do you like better?

Attached image is the 2nd processing.

Thanks again.

Peter


Howard Ritter
 

It might depend on one’s mood. The 2nd processing shows the inner dust lanes and the core much better, but overall it’s duller and flatter than the original because it loses brightness in the hazy expanses of billions of outer disc stars. Can you snip, so to speak, the portion of the 2nd process image that lies within, say, the inner circumferential dust ring and use it to replace the corresponding portion of the original? Could be cut-and-paste, could be localized burning and/or dodging maybe.

—howard

On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:51 PM, Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:

Thank you Christian and Rolando.

I have processed M31 two different ways. The original is minimal processing. The second one is same as minimal processing plus increase contrast and tame the core of M31.

Blink between the first 2 images at higher resolution at:

https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Click on right and then left arrows back and forth to blink both images.

Which one do you like better?

Attached image is the 2nd processing.

Thanks again.

Peter

<M31_HDR10_LHE2_4MP.jpg>


Peter Nagy
 

Hi Howard,

Thanks for analyzing my images. I agree with you. I'm not an expert in what you're asking and I'm not sure how to do it.

Peter


Howard Ritter
 

Neither am I! That’s why what I suggested might be jibber-jabber. Someone who actually knows about advanced image processing is sure to jump in, though.

—howard

On Dec 5, 2021, at 9:57 PM, Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:

Hi Howard,

Thanks for analyzing my images. I agree with you. I'm not an expert in what you're asking and I'm not sure how to do it.

Peter


davidcfinch9
 

I believe the best technique to “combine” the images is to use the Masking function of Photoshop.

David

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Howard Ritter via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 9:46 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] M31 with A-P1100GTO-AE mount, TEC 160FL, FRC, and QHY600M-PH camera

 

It might depend on one’s mood. The 2nd processing shows the inner dust lanes and the core much better, but overall it’s duller and flatter than the original because it loses brightness in the hazy expanses of billions of outer disc stars. Can you snip, so to speak, the portion of the 2nd process image that lies within, say, the inner circumferential dust ring and use it to replace the corresponding portion of the original? Could be cut-and-paste, could be localized burning and/or dodging maybe.

 

—howard



On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:51 PM, Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:

 

Thank you Christian and Rolando.

I have processed M31 two different ways. The original is minimal processing. The second one is same as minimal processing plus increase contrast and tame the core of M31.

Blink between the first 2 images at higher resolution at:

https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Click on right and then left arrows back and forth to blink both images.

Which one do you like better?

Attached image is the 2nd processing.

Thanks again.

Peter

<M31_HDR10_LHE2_4MP.jpg>

 


christian viladrich
 

Hello Peter,

Difficult choice ;-)

Both versions have their pro and cons. The second version increases the contrast of the dust lanes close to the galaxy core. Still, I think I prefer the original version because it is more realistic. It captures the luminosity and size of the central core while preserving a good visibility of the dust lanes.

This being said, both version are excellent !

Christian


Le 06/12/2021 à 00:51, Peter Nagy a écrit :

Thank you Christian and Rolando.

I have processed M31 two different ways. The original is minimal processing. The second one is same as minimal processing plus increase contrast and tame the core of M31.

Blink between the first 2 images at higher resolution at:

https://peternagy.smugmug.com/Telescopes/Galaxies/i-5Vpm6ps/A

Click on right and then left arrows back and forth to blink both images.

Which one do you like better?

Attached image is the 2nd processing.

Thanks again.

Peter


Peter Nagy
 

I've been staring at both images all day and I think I like the original image better because it looks more natural. The original image has minimal processing and the second image is more over processed that negatively affected some parts of the image. Generally, I don't like to over process images.

Thanks for your opinions. 

Peter


Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

If you use Photoshop you can combine the two images in two different ways. You can put one over the other at 50% or some other percentage you want to average the two to get a little bit of both aspects of the images or you can put the version with the better stars on top and mask out the part you want from the other version underneath so it shows through.   I use the second method to put shorter exposure versions in the middle of galaxy cores or shorter exposure versions to mask over blown out stars. 

I use the first method to average two versions to get my final when I can’t decide which one I like best. 

Robert 


On Dec 7, 2021, at 8:42 AM, Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:

I've been staring at both images all day and I think I like the original image better because it looks more natural. The original image has minimal processing and the second image is more over processed that negatively affected some parts of the image. Generally, I don't like to over process images.

Thanks for your opinions. 

Peter


Peter Nagy
 

Thanks for the pointing this out but I don't own PS. I have tried using PS in the past but I just don't have the knack for it. I find PixInsight easier.

Thanks, 
Peter 


 

>>>Thanks for the pointing this out but I don't own PS. I have tried using PS in the past but I just don't have the knack for it. I find PixInsight easier.

in that case, even better! you can use pixelmath and blend the images 50/50 (or whatever you wish) with something like

images * 0.5 + imageB * 0.5


Brian

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:23 PM Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:
Thanks for the pointing this out but I don't own PS. I have tried using PS in the past but I just don't have the knack for it. I find PixInsight easier.

Thanks, 
Peter 



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Peter Nagy
 

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 01:34 PM, Brian Valente wrote:
in that case, even better! you can use pixelmath and blend the images 50/50 (or whatever you wish) with something like
 
images * 0.5 + imageB * 0.5
 
 
Brian
Interesting. I'll have to try that.

Thanks,
Peter


Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I was going to mention Pixel Math as I know it can do similar things.  

I have so much trouble with Pixinsight.   It just has so many variables to deal with that I can’t wrap my brain around it.  It would be a lot better for me  if it had simplistic ways to do things and then advanced options.   I have made many attempts to use it but only use A few of its features. Photometric Color Calibration is fantastic. Dynamic background extraction is great also. 

Robert 


On Dec 7, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Peter Nagy <topboxman@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 01:34 PM, Brian Valente wrote:
in that case, even better! you can use pixelmath and blend the images 50/50 (or whatever you wish) with something like
 
images * 0.5 + imageB * 0.5
 
 
Brian
Interesting. I'll have to try that.

Thanks,
Peter


ap@CaptivePhotons.com
 

  • I was going to mention Pixel Math as I know it can do similar things.  

 

An advantage that Photoshop has though is that you can paint masks (and lots of other manipulations of them).  So if you are blending two versions, you can literally brush one onto the other slowly, getting a mixture however you like, more heavily in some areas, less in others either by brush stroke, gradients, fuzzy edges, etc.

 

Pixinsight is far more precise, more mathematical, but (and for some good purists reasons) does not encourage artistic modifications like that.

 

Linwood

 


Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I have some PS images that have over 20 layers and many of them have certain parts of the image painted here and there, especially with sharpening.  Some of my files are close to four Gb. 

Robert 


On Dec 7, 2021, at 5:01 PM, ap@... wrote:


  • I was going to mention Pixel Math as I know it can do similar things.  

 

An advantage that Photoshop has though is that you can paint masks (and lots of other manipulations of them).  So if you are blending two versions, you can literally brush one onto the other slowly, getting a mixture however you like, more heavily in some areas, less in others either by brush stroke, gradients, fuzzy edges, etc.

 

Pixinsight is far more precise, more mathematical, but (and for some good purists reasons) does not encourage artistic modifications like that.

 

Linwood

 


Tom Blahovici
 

One can do HDR composition with PI. Two sets of photos one at short exposires for the core and one  longer. That will give the best of both.
Quite easy to do. I've done it for the trapezium on m42.
Tom


Peter Nagy
 

Robert, Linwood and Tom,

Thanks for the suggestions. I have a lot to learn about processing. I agree with PixInsight developers that do not encourage artistic modifications. I need to go back to Warren Keller's PI video tutorials to learn some more.

Peter


Tom Blahovici
 

Hi
You are in Reno, NV...in the city or away? Bortle skies?
Thanks