ASTRO: Pease 1

With the boring first half of tonight's and a chill in the house,
instead of lighting a fire I put the laptop on my lap and kept warm
while reprocessing the heck out of my previously posted M15 shot. I
found that by severely processing only the bright (above 40,000 ADU)
portion of the image I could easily round out those horrid stars in the
green and blue images. When I did out popped Pease 1. One problem, its
the wrong color. Every photo I found on the net has it red. Even
Hubble has it red as seen by film but blue as seen by the eye (has
anyone seen it by eye?). So why did it come out blue on my image? I
don't know. Might be due to the slightly heavier processing of the
green and blue images compared to the red but even before that, once I
just cut the black at 40K the blue and green images had it much stronger
than the red did though with the much sharper red image it was easily
seen without the high ADU cutoff.

For a very good HaGB image oriented nearly the same as mine (rotated a
bit clockwise from mine) taken under much better seeing and at higher
image scale see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m15_p1cap.jpg
I had 3.25" stars (red and lum), before processing, he had 2" before
deconvolution. I used unsharp mask rather than deconvolution but didn't
check to see the difference.

The H alpha may be why it is pink in that shot. But you can use that
image to check my ID of the planetary. Least my color is more typical
of planetaries! Also it seems slightly larger than the other stars of
its brightness. Though that may be due to the problem with the green
and blue images being much larger than the red. That may be why it is
blue as well. Though once processed the size difference was quite small.

For Hubble's view see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m015_h2.html

Same info as before, just reprocessed and cropped. Scale is the same as
the original as is the orientation.

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".

Hi Rick, I saw P1 about 10 years ago. I was observing with a couple of
friends who just built a 22" dob. The object was to get M15 out of the
field of view so I used a 7.4mm plossl and a 2.5x barlow which was about
900x. I remember it as being surrounded by a 3 or 4 stars and P1 being a
gray blob in the center. To find it I used a map that was in Deep Sky
magazine.

Joe















"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
With the boring first half of tonight's and a chill in the house,
instead of lighting a fire I put the laptop on my lap and kept warm
while reprocessing the heck out of my previously posted M15 shot. I
found that by severely processing only the bright (above 40,000 ADU)
portion of the image I could easily round out those horrid stars in the
green and blue images. When I did out popped Pease 1. One problem, its
the wrong color. Every photo I found on the net has it red. Even
Hubble has it red as seen by film but blue as seen by the eye (has
anyone seen it by eye?). So why did it come out blue on my image? I
don't know. Might be due to the slightly heavier processing of the
green and blue images compared to the red but even before that, once I
just cut the black at 40K the blue and green images had it much stronger
than the red did though with the much sharper red image it was easily
seen without the high ADU cutoff.

For a very good HaGB image oriented nearly the same as mine (rotated a
bit clockwise from mine) taken under much better seeing and at higher
image scale see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m15_p1cap.jpg
I had 3.25" stars (red and lum), before processing, he had 2" before
deconvolution. I used unsharp mask rather than deconvolution but didn't
check to see the difference.

The H alpha may be why it is pink in that shot. But you can use that
image to check my ID of the planetary. Least my color is more typical
of planetaries! Also it seems slightly larger than the other stars of
its brightness. Though that may be due to the problem with the green
and blue images being much larger than the red. That may be why it is
blue as well. Though once processed the size difference was quite small.

For Hubble's view see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m015_h2.html

Same info as before, just reprocessed and cropped. Scale is the same as
the original as is the orientation.

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".



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

It's still well inside near the core in photos but then it's smaller
visually and M15 does have a very dense core. I imagine at that
magnitude color wouldn't be seen visually. Hubble shot shows the color
only at the edges and no center to it, just the star. I get a blob due
to seeing.

I tried once in an 18" but that's as large as I used on it. We have a
club member with a 30" Obsession that has blown me away on M1 which
looks and was colored just like the RGB photos with the red filaments
and all. Never tried it on Pease 1.

I've since found one net photo that has it the same blue I show. But it
was taken with a modified webcam!
(http://astro.neutral.org/imagehtml/20040918_m15.html)
Another shows it grey same as you saw it. But does show a tinge of red
right where the red is strongest in the Hubble shot.
(http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/m15.html)
Seems color is an interesting subject! I'm apparently getting too
strong a blue signal in other objects, Fox Fur and now M7 seem to show
too much blue. Yet if I tone it down then the background goes to a
funny color. When I get the background black then there's too much blue
in the photo. Something I'm not handling right.

Rick


J McBride wrote:

Hi Rick, I saw P1 about 10 years ago. I was observing with a couple of
friends who just built a 22" dob. The object was to get M15 out of the
field of view so I used a 7.4mm plossl and a 2.5x barlow which was about
900x. I remember it as being surrounded by a 3 or 4 stars and P1 being a
gray blob in the center. To find it I used a map that was in Deep Sky
magazine.

Joe















"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

With the boring first half of tonight's and a chill in the house,
instead of lighting a fire I put the laptop on my lap and kept warm
while reprocessing the heck out of my previously posted M15 shot. I
found that by severely processing only the bright (above 40,000 ADU)
portion of the image I could easily round out those horrid stars in the
green and blue images. When I did out popped Pease 1. One problem, its
the wrong color. Every photo I found on the net has it red. Even
Hubble has it red as seen by film but blue as seen by the eye (has
anyone seen it by eye?). So why did it come out blue on my image? I
don't know. Might be due to the slightly heavier processing of the
green and blue images compared to the red but even before that, once I
just cut the black at 40K the blue and green images had it much stronger
than the red did though with the much sharper red image it was easily
seen without the high ADU cutoff.

For a very good HaGB image oriented nearly the same as mine (rotated a
bit clockwise from mine) taken under much better seeing and at higher
image scale see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m15_p1cap.jpg
I had 3.25" stars (red and lum), before processing, he had 2" before
deconvolution. I used unsharp mask rather than deconvolution but didn't
check to see the difference.

The H alpha may be why it is pink in that shot. But you can use that
image to check my ID of the planetary. Least my color is more typical
of planetaries! Also it seems slightly larger than the other stars of
its brightness. Though that may be due to the problem with the green
and blue images being much larger than the red. That may be why it is
blue as well. Though once processed the size difference was quite small.

For Hubble's view see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m015_h2.html

Same info as before, just reprocessed and cropped. Scale is the same as
the original as is the orientation.

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 job picking out this small PN. The red colour in some images may well
be "false" colour due to a Halpha channel. You can often see this effect in
images of galaxies (e.g. M101) where knots that look blue in an RGB image
look red if a Halpha channel is mixed in. But I have to admit that I don't
really have a clue which colour this PN "should" have.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
With the boring first half of tonight's and a chill in the house,
instead of lighting a fire I put the laptop on my lap and kept warm
while reprocessing the heck out of my previously posted M15 shot. I
found that by severely processing only the bright (above 40,000 ADU)
portion of the image I could easily round out those horrid stars in the
green and blue images. When I did out popped Pease 1. One problem, its
the wrong color. Every photo I found on the net has it red. Even
Hubble has it red as seen by film but blue as seen by the eye (has
anyone seen it by eye?). So why did it come out blue on my image? I
don't know. Might be due to the slightly heavier processing of the
green and blue images compared to the red but even before that, once I
just cut the black at 40K the blue and green images had it much stronger
than the red did though with the much sharper red image it was easily
seen without the high ADU cutoff.

For a very good HaGB image oriented nearly the same as mine (rotated a
bit clockwise from mine) taken under much better seeing and at higher
image scale see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m15_p1cap.jpg
I had 3.25" stars (red and lum), before processing, he had 2" before
deconvolution. I used unsharp mask rather than deconvolution but didn't
check to see the difference.

The H alpha may be why it is pink in that shot. But you can use that
image to check my ID of the planetary. Least my color is more typical
of planetaries! Also it seems slightly larger than the other stars of
its brightness. Though that may be due to the problem with the green
and blue images being much larger than the red. That may be why it is
blue as well. Though once processed the size difference was quite small.

For Hubble's view see:
http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m015_h2.html

Same info as before, just reprocessed and cropped. Scale is the same as
the original as is the orientation.

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".