PDA

View Full Version : ASTRO: New Image; Cone Nebula in [SII], [NII] and Ha Light


Richard Crisp
February 11th 04, 09:25 AM
Tonight we had clear skies again. The seeing was a bit better tonight than
last, but nothing like Saturday.

I was stumbling around trying to find a decent target and decided to have
another look at the Cone, but this time using an [NII] filter along with the
[SII] and Ha. There's little if any [OIII] signal in it.

This area is interesting in those three filters. With a bit more exposure
(maybe tomorrow), it could get pretty interesting. For some reason I liked
the portrait orientation of this image so that's why it is done that way.

I shot it with my ST10XME, AP155 and Cust Sci [SII], [NII] and Ha filters.
Subexposures were 15 minutes and I shot only three subs with each filter for
a total of 2 hours 15 minutes

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/ngc2264_S2N2Ha_page.htm

Szaki
February 11th 04, 10:20 AM
Yes, the seeing was excelent here in Pleasanton, also. Looked at the planets
with my C-11.
Exelent photo of the Cone, Crisp. Whish, my scope would show it like that.
(-:

Julius

"Richard Crisp" > wrote in message
om...
> Tonight we had clear skies again. The seeing was a bit better tonight than
> last, but nothing like Saturday.
>
> I was stumbling around trying to find a decent target and decided to have
> another look at the Cone, but this time using an [NII] filter along with
the
> [SII] and Ha. There's little if any [OIII] signal in it.
>
> This area is interesting in those three filters. With a bit more exposure
> (maybe tomorrow), it could get pretty interesting. For some reason I liked
> the portrait orientation of this image so that's why it is done that way.
>
> I shot it with my ST10XME, AP155 and Cust Sci [SII], [NII] and Ha filters.
> Subexposures were 15 minutes and I shot only three subs with each filter
for
> a total of 2 hours 15 minutes
>
> http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/ngc2264_S2N2Ha_page.htm
>
>

Bill Meyers
February 12th 04, 12:20 AM
Thanks for a wonderful image.
"Stumbling," indeed! " We should all stumble so well.
"For some reason..?" The reason is that you have very good aesthetic
sensibilities.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers

Richard Crisp wrote:

> Tonight we had clear skies again. The seeing was a bit better tonight than
> last, but nothing like Saturday.
>
> I was stumbling around trying to find a decent target and decided to have
> another look at the Cone, but this time using an [NII] filter along with the
> [SII] and Ha. There's little if any [OIII] signal in it.
>
> This area is interesting in those three filters. With a bit more exposure
> (maybe tomorrow), it could get pretty interesting. For some reason I liked
> the portrait orientation of this image so that's why it is done that way.
>
> I shot it with my ST10XME, AP155 and Cust Sci [SII], [NII] and Ha filters.
> Subexposures were 15 minutes and I shot only three subs with each filter for
> a total of 2 hours 15 minutes
>
> http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/ngc2264_S2N2Ha_page.htm

Richard Crisp
February 12th 04, 12:49 AM
"Bill Meyers" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for a wonderful image.
> "Stumbling," indeed! " We should all stumble so well.


Let me explain the stumbling. I had intended to image V838 Monocerous. It
had this amazing ejection of matter some time back and I had seen a
wonderful RGB image from Arne Hendon/Al Kelly. I felt that an emission line
image may be interesting, so that was my intended target.

Well it turns out that V838 has gone into remission I guess. The cool
nebulosity surrounding it seems to be gone. This is what it looked like back
in the Fall of 2003: http://www.ghg.net/akelly/v838lar3.jpg This is the Al
Kelly/Arne Hendon image I had mentioned above.

You can understand why that was attractive to me :-)

Anyway after washing out on that, there was a little planetary I wanted to
potentially image. But it wound up being a lot smaller in diameter than I
could image properly with the configuration I was using.

So then I decided to have a look at a lot of the little planetaries in the
basic area of the Rosette. They were all too dim or too small or both. So
then I thought maybe I'd do a bit of the core of the Rosette, but didn't
like the FOV being so small. I then thought about trying for McNeil 1, that
new nebula in Orion, but it was too small for my FOV too.

Well to make a long story short, I fooled around for over an hour and a half
trying to find an acceptable target before finally settling on a redo of the
Cone. I had shot a widefield of the area in the early fall, and learned then
that there was no [OIII] in it,. but in the meantime I had picked up an
[NII] filter. Since there was a lot of Ha and [SII] that I had found in the
fall, I decided to try adding some [NII] in and that paid off.

I stopped gathering data after three exposures through each of my filters, I
wanted to make sure this thing would be worthwhile to continue investing
time to image. So that's why I stopped after 2.25 hours; I wanted to see
what I had so far. Now that I know it is worthwhile, I will collect more
data to have a less noisy image.

Here's that widefield that I shot last fall:

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/ngc2264_emission_page.htm

best wishes
Richard

Bill Meyers
February 12th 04, 02:00 AM
More great images! Thank you, Richard.
Bill Meyers

Richard Crisp wrote:

> "Bill Meyers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks for a wonderful image.
> > "Stumbling," indeed! " We should all stumble so well.
>
> Let me explain the stumbling. I had intended to image V838 Monocerous. It
> had this amazing ejection of matter some time back and I had seen a
> wonderful RGB image from Arne Hendon/Al Kelly. I felt that an emission line
> image may be interesting, so that was my intended target.
>
> Well it turns out that V838 has gone into remission I guess. The cool
> nebulosity surrounding it seems to be gone. This is what it looked like back
> in the Fall of 2003: http://www.ghg.net/akelly/v838lar3.jpg This is the Al
> Kelly/Arne Hendon image I had mentioned above.
>
> You can understand why that was attractive to me :-)
>
> Anyway after washing out on that, there was a little planetary I wanted to
> potentially image. But it wound up being a lot smaller in diameter than I
> could image properly with the configuration I was using.
>
> So then I decided to have a look at a lot of the little planetaries in the
> basic area of the Rosette. They were all too dim or too small or both. So
> then I thought maybe I'd do a bit of the core of the Rosette, but didn't
> like the FOV being so small. I then thought about trying for McNeil 1, that
> new nebula in Orion, but it was too small for my FOV too.
>
> Well to make a long story short, I fooled around for over an hour and a half
> trying to find an acceptable target before finally settling on a redo of the
> Cone. I had shot a widefield of the area in the early fall, and learned then
> that there was no [OIII] in it,. but in the meantime I had picked up an
> [NII] filter. Since there was a lot of Ha and [SII] that I had found in the
> fall, I decided to try adding some [NII] in and that paid off.
>
> I stopped gathering data after three exposures through each of my filters, I
> wanted to make sure this thing would be worthwhile to continue investing
> time to image. So that's why I stopped after 2.25 hours; I wanted to see
> what I had so far. Now that I know it is worthwhile, I will collect more
> data to have a less noisy image.
>
> Here's that widefield that I shot last fall:
>
> http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/ngc2264_emission_page.htm
>
> best wishes
> Richard