TheSkySearchers

Also includes: PK107-00.1.
Total integration: 27 hours/1620 minutes = 110x5m for S2 + 112x5m for Ha + 102x5m for O3.

Camera: QHY163M (16mp mono) CMOS cooled to -15 degrees C.
Telescope: Takahashi FC100DF Steinheil fluorite doublet apochromat refractor @ f/7.4.
Reducer: None.
Mount: Paramount MyT.
Filters: Astrodon 5nm Ha, 3nm O3, 3nm S2.
Software: Sharpcap, PixInsight.

More detail and different versions are here: https://www.astrobin.com/4j0pwf/

I've been meaning to do this target for a long while but removed the reducer on my FC100DF so I could get it to fill the frame a bit better (you can see the consequence of not having a flattener with the corner stars and focus is difficult since my FC100DF doesn't have a microfocusser which I've just finally ordered so I can tighten this part up a bit, which should show up in my next image of the NGC281/Pac Man Nebula). This is the first target I've imaged with the FC100DF at its native focal length and it's also the first target I've managed to finish processing since last fall.

The Wizard emission nebula is a relatively bright and popular target for astrophotographers. The star forming region was discovered as an open cluster (Cr452/NGC7380) in the constellation Cepheus by Caroline Herschel, whose husband included it in his catalogue. The large active region has a radius of 100 light years and is 7200 light years away from us. The ionised atomic hydrogen from the young stars intermix with space dust in a manner resembling frothy waves and blue flames. The nebula is expected to a last a few million years, though some of the stars will outlive our sun. In addition, there's a smaller nebula (Sh2-143) that is often overlooked when talking about the magical wizard as well as a supernova remnant (PK107-00.1).

Given that it had been several months since I had done anything, I was a bit rusty and I had a tough time deciding which version to go with so I decided to showcase a few of them so people can decide for themselves (though my favourite choice is the first one and it has the least amount of processing). Most have to do variations in colours of the "blue flames" and "waves" regions as well as the background but the last one was done by creating a starless version of the nebula coloured using the Photometric Color Calibration process in PixInsight (first time doing both!) and then stars from a simpler version were put back in (thanks to Stephen King et al. for introducing me to the star removal technique). The process worked as far as mixing and matching goes, but starting with the PCC (which may have been a mistake or I didn't do it properly) and working my way to the final image via the starless process caused a some loss of detail that is present when using the more conventional approaches. Still, I've included it here to show what I did using the star removal approach.

https://www.astrobin.com/4j0pwf/C/ - different colour choices
https://www.astrobin.com/4j0pwf/D/ - different colour choices
https://www.astrobin.com/4j0pwf/E/ - different colour choices
https://www.astrobin.com/4j0pwf/F/ - Ha only

B actually is the same as the main image but without the sharpened stars using Multiscale Linear Transform. What I did was put up the two images next to each other in two browser windows and swapped between them using my keyboard and couldn't decide but there's a difference with benefits and loss of the "natural/pure" look (if there's such a thing, I mean that the main colour image is minimally processed once I got the master lights for each filter, mostly just SCNR and stretching and slight curves aside from the MLT-based sharpening; the others are varying attempts at it). Let me know if you spot the difference and what you is better:

http://ram.org/images/space/downloads/n ... _test1.jpg
http://ram.org/images/space/downloads/n ... _test2.jpg

As always, thanks for looking!

--Ram

Sweet, Ram. I like your alternate A image the best.

Thanks Hank - you mean B (which is alternate A without sharpening)? Yeah, based on the comments on AB some people prefer it - I couldn't decide but I figured someone must like that version that is less processed but my 12 year old daughter liked the sharpened one and she's the decisive one...

--Ram

Ram,

Very nice image. That is a lot of time on target. The ones on the link are nice as well. I do like version B the best.

Regards,
Mike

Really impressive. And a serious time commitment!

Wonderful! Great job!

Congratulations Ram on having your image selected as todays TSS APOD!

app.php/article/7-5-2020-tss-astrophoto ... of-the-day

Hello Ram. A nice gallery of your Wizard Nebula images on Astrobin. Wow, this represents a lot of processing time, and I also like the version B the best. Thanks for sharing all of this great work on here Ram, and congratulations on winning the TSS APOD Award today.

No surprise that this is the best image of the day. It's awesome!

Nice work Ram. Congrats on the APOD.

The sharpened / un-sharpened (A/B) choice is a difficult one. I think I like the sharpened one better because of how the nebula looks, but the un-sharpened stars are better than the sharpened stars IMHO.

This seem to be a good candidate for a starless process. In general, would create a starless nebula and a stars only image. Sharpen the nebula and then combine the un-sharpened stars back into the sharpened nebula.

Simply superb....

Pretty Ram - Lovely colors and details. All those hours really paid off (both data hours and processing hours). I like the Original version better because it's a bit sharper. Just my personal taste. The Original and B are my two favorites.

Steve

Thank you all! Wow, I appreciate it - I know there are so many more better and deserving pictures so I'm humbled by it. For me the most important thing is to keep learning and get better and have fun and I've got to say I'm on many astro forums and this is my "home" (as was the old AF). Thanks especially to all those who have helped me grow on this journey - couldn't have done it without you!

JayTee, I did try the starless version (and Steve also did) but it went nowhere. I'm now doing starless with sh2-132 and it has come out superbly - so good I might've even overdone it (will know when I put the stars back) but it has really come out well. I think you're right that knowing what I know now and going back may be worth it but it's always like that right? You learn so much and then all the old images have to be reprocessed or redone. I think with the Wizard I do have some good data and more could be done but probably another day. Going forward though, I put in 60 hours on sh2-132 and it is going to pay off judging from the starless images. I'm slowly working on getting it done ands skipping going out at night during the full moon even though it's been clear for days and days in a row here. I'm now doing the S2 data but the Ha and O3 look great.

--Ram