ASTRO: NGC 2392 reworked

Sorry for two posts but the first one never reached SpaceBanter that
many are now relying on.

Two years ago when I took this data my image processing skills were
poor. I'm going back and reprocessing some of my old images that look
like they could be improved. I was shocked by how much I improved this
one. I can't believe it's the same data. Especially considering how
little data I have on it. For laughs I've included the earlier version.
Yes, it really is the same data! I've never found CCDSharp to be of
much help but it was in this case. I used 6 iterations on the
Luminosity and 3 on each color filtered frame. A hard application of PS
high pass filter on the final combine did the rest. Looking at the raw
data this appears to be the best seeing I've ever had here with FWHM of
1.3" on most frames. A new record. 3.5" is normal! It seems that
CCDSharp works best when seeing is already top notch.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=6x2' RGB=3x2' all binned 1x1, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME. Image scale 0.5" per pixel as taken and displayed.

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

outstanding PN!
Gonna hit this one up...



"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
ster.com...
Sorry for two posts but the first one never reached SpaceBanter that
many are now relying on.

Two years ago when I took this data my image processing skills were
poor. I'm going back and reprocessing some of my old images that look
like they could be improved. I was shocked by how much I improved this
one. I can't believe it's the same data. Especially considering how
little data I have on it. For laughs I've included the earlier version.
Yes, it really is the same data! I've never found CCDSharp to be of
much help but it was in this case. I used 6 iterations on the
Luminosity and 3 on each color filtered frame. A hard application of PS
high pass filter on the final combine did the rest. Looking at the raw
data this appears to be the best seeing I've ever had here with FWHM of
1.3" on most frames. A new record. 3.5" is normal! It seems that
CCDSharp works best when seeing is already top notch.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=6x2' RGB=3x2' all binned 1x1, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME. Image scale 0.5" per pixel as taken and displayed.

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Rick, great detail in the eskimo. The good seeing translates into a very
impressive image. My last try on this object was some years ago, so I should
go for it this season. Even if I don't get the same detail as you I have a
good chance of improving upon my poor old image.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ster.com...
Sorry for two posts but the first one never reached SpaceBanter that
many are now relying on.

Two years ago when I took this data my image processing skills were
poor. I'm going back and reprocessing some of my old images that look
like they could be improved. I was shocked by how much I improved this
one. I can't believe it's the same data. Especially considering how
little data I have on it. For laughs I've included the earlier version.
Yes, it really is the same data! I've never found CCDSharp to be of
much help but it was in this case. I used 6 iterations on the
Luminosity and 3 on each color filtered frame. A hard application of PS
high pass filter on the final combine did the rest. Looking at the raw
data this appears to be the best seeing I've ever had here with FWHM of
1.3" on most frames. A new record. 3.5" is normal! It seems that
CCDSharp works best when seeing is already top notch.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=6x2' RGB=3x2' all binned 1x1, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME. Image scale 0.5" per pixel as taken and displayed.

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".