APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Sat May 23, 2015 8:10 am

I have no idea if there is any kind of emission nebula out there that's blue. I think you'll have to settle for the reflection nebulas like the Pleiades. The last three are just turning on the layers. I made the OIII brighter because it would be overwhelmed by the two red ones otherwise. It's not like I measured the flux or luminosity (what's the right word?) of each emission and adjusted their brightness accordingly. I've never had that kind of discipline in processing—not that you thought that I did, but it's the only other way I can think to do it.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Sat May 23, 2015 4:49 am

geckzilla wrote:I can create an image that uses all appropriate wavelengths and nearly the same filters as the CHART32 image. It's missing SII but that's yet another red, so NII is a good enough replacement. OIII is added as this color: XXXX and Ha and NII are both pure red additions. There is no way to get this nebula to be blue if you are sticking to reality because this nebula is simply not blue. It's dominated by red, orange, and yellow. You'll notice that even after all the narrowband filters are added, the central star is still blue. It's really the only blue thing about the nebula.

http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB+OIII.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB+OIII+Ha.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_ ... Ha+NII.jpg
Thanks, Geck! I'm very pleased that the central star looks blue in all your images. As for the nebula, I'm not really asking for a blue emission nebula. Do "RGB blue" emission nebulas really exist?

I prefer the RGB image because I think of it as the most "natural". I note, too, that it is the "bluest", because there are hints of blue in the innermost part of the nebula. The last image is nice too, in a "Christmas color" way. How did you color balance the narrowband filters in that one?

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Sat May 23, 2015 4:40 am

geckzilla wrote:You'd have to define natural, anyway. There seems to be several lines of what "natural" means to people. One of those is "what I want my eyes to see" (more bias) / "what I think my eyes would see" (less bias) and another is "the wavelength approximated by an RGB display" and yet another is a kind of combination of those two where a few compromises are made in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing image. Whether or not those compromises are acceptably "natural" or not is another argument. To me, Schedler's image is clearly color balanced (the OIII got moved to the blue channel) rather than representative of reality.
I'll settle for "the wavelength approximated by an RGB display".

There are many, to me, "colorfully weird" often HST planetary nebula images out there. I can understand, I really can, that they may have been imaged through a specific set of filters for scientific purposes. Another explanation might be, sometimes, that the nebula was imaged through the set of filters that was most economic for the Hubble telescope itself. Again I must respect that.

But I would have found it so helpful if the Hubble release of a strangely colored nebula was accompanied by a lower-quality RGB image of the same nebula.

Finally I have to agree with what you said about the color balancing of Schedler's image. I like it the way it looks, but I would have respected it if the OIII channel had been shown as green.

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Sat May 23, 2015 1:35 am

If we arbitrarily decide, well, I don't like that greenish yellowish brownish color, then we can scoot the OIII away from 502nm to occupy a much bluer color (XXXX), then increase its brightness greatly so that it rivals the dominance of the red light like Ha and NII, and finally force the colors to separate even farther with a saturation adjustment... it becomes this.
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_arbitrary.jpg

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Sat May 23, 2015 12:29 am

I can create an image that uses all appropriate wavelengths and nearly the same filters as the CHART32 image. It's missing SII but that's yet another red, so NII is a good enough replacement. OIII is added as this color: XXXX and Ha and NII are both pure red additions. There is no way to get this nebula to be blue if you are sticking to reality because this nebula is simply not blue. It's dominated by red, orange, and yellow. You'll notice that even after all the narrowband filters are added, the central star is still blue. It's really the only blue thing about the nebula.

http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB+OIII.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_RGB+OIII+Ha.jpg
http://www.geckzilla.com/astro/NGC2440_ ... Ha+NII.jpg

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Fri May 22, 2015 8:29 pm

You'd have to define natural, anyway. There seems to be several lines of what "natural" means to people. One of those is "what I want my eyes to see" (more bias) / "what I think my eyes would see" (less bias) and another is "the wavelength approximated by an RGB display" and yet another is a kind of combination of those two where a few compromises are made in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing image. Whether or not those compromises are acceptably "natural" or not is another argument. To me, Schedler's image is clearly color balanced (the OIII got moved to the blue channel) rather than representative of reality.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Fri May 22, 2015 5:02 pm

The colors in the image processed by Johannes Schedler look so much better and closer to "probable visual 'enhanced' color reality" than the visual plus IR color image in the APOD, in my opinion.

But I will not join the discussion about whether they are "natural" or not.

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 22, 2015 4:13 pm

starsurfer wrote:A "natural" colour image by CHART32 can be seen here.
Not sure I'd call it that. It's essentially a narrowband image of the nebula combined with RGB to yield reasonable star colors. The Ha and O[III] give a suggestion of "natural" color, but overall I think it's still fairly artificial.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by starsurfer » Fri May 22, 2015 3:55 pm

A "natural" colour image by CHART32 can be seen here.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Mon May 18, 2015 4:10 pm

geckzilla wrote:Mollusks are pretty great.
Especially with a shot of Tabasco or horseradish.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Mon May 18, 2015 3:43 pm

Well, butterflies do tend to get a lot more respect than mollusks. Mollusks are pretty great.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by DavidLeodis » Mon May 18, 2015 1:19 pm

The image has often been used as an APOD (I've no problem with that) and I'm amused how part of the explanation has changed. In the explanation to its first use in the APOD of December 3 1996 it states "Like a butterfly, a white dwarf star begins its life by casting off a cocoon that enclosed its former self. In this analogy, however, the Sun would be a caterpillar and the ejected shell of gas would become the prettiest of all!" whereas in the explanation to at least its current use (I've not checked other explanations) it states "Like a pearl, a white dwarf star shines best after being freed from its shell. In this analogy, however, the Sun would be a mollusk and its discarded hull would shine prettiest of all!". :)

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Mon May 18, 2015 2:26 am

It's not always obvious what the observational goals were just from looking at one of the images produced. I find that it often helps a lot to read the abstracts for any given Hubble observation.
http://archive.stsci.edu/proposal_searc ... st&id=6119

Sometimes the choices still aren't obvious. I have often been perplexed by seemingly nonsensical observations only to later realize exactly why something was done. Sometimes I ask but I like to figure it out on my own.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Mon May 18, 2015 1:45 am

geckzilla wrote:In my experience, F814W sees through a lot of dust. It won't get through the thickest of dust, but in meager amounts the light at that wavelength just goes right through it. You can think of it like red light that has some extra dust-penetrating ability. It doesn't mean dust is or isn't there. It's not that kind of infrared.
Okay. Thanks.

What made today's APOD so difficult for me to read was the fact that it was made from exposures through an unusual filter combination. There are several "conventional" filter combinations, which I can quickly learn to read. Apart from RGB, there is the Hubble palette of OIII, Ha, SII, the Spitzer palette of two or three different wavelengths of infrared light, the GALEX palette of far ultraviolet and near ultraviolet, and the extremely common Hubble two-filter palette of F606W and F814W. It's easy to learn what these filters measure and what their mapped colors typically look like.

The Hubble filter set of F606W and F814W is similar to F555W and F815W. But the filter set of F606W and F814W is typically used for imagings of gas-poor and dust-poor objects like globular clusters and galaxies. I wouldn't expect it to be used for a nebula.

When I see a picture made from an unusual filter combination and a non-obvious color mapping, used on an unexpected object, and I get no explanation, I definitely get confused.

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Mon May 18, 2015 1:22 am

In my experience, F814W sees through a lot of dust. It won't get through the thickest of dust, but in meager amounts the light at that wavelength just goes right through it. You can think of it like red light that has some extra dust-penetrating ability. It doesn't mean dust is or isn't there. It's not that kind of infrared.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Mon May 18, 2015 1:15 am

Geck wrote:
Astronomical imagery with scientific purpose will continue to defy your expectations, Ann. It's always going to be hard for you to interpret scientific imagery as long as you continue to expect things to follow the standards of astrophotographers who primarily create their images as works of art.
If I am told what filters are used and what the colors mean (for example, the F814W filter is mapped as orange and traces dust) it should not be too hard for me to understand the images.

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Mon May 18, 2015 1:11 am

Chris wrote:
You're the one that provided the link to the data page for this image (or one that used very similar processing and the same data). It's pretty clear about the mapping.
All right, Chris. But it has happened to me before that I have followed a link to Hubble Heritage, checked out the Fast Facts page, and been told here that I got my facts wrong, and I should have checked out another Hubble page instead.

So this really is a F555W and F814W image. The way I understand it, F814W basically traces dust. Would it be correct, then, to say that the orange-looking parts in today's APOD are either dusty or otherwise very cool (like some of the stars), while the non-orange parts are dominated by visual light?

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 17, 2015 10:49 pm

Boomer12k wrote:I like Geckzilla's RGB photo...I can recognize the "lobes" now...the other is too TWO dimensional looking to me...
Of course, the RGB image covers a much wider field of view. The lobes are largely out of the field of view of today's APOD, which may be why you see it as flatter (although I don't- the central "cave" looks very 3D to my eyes).

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Boomer12k » Sun May 17, 2015 10:38 pm

So...it is the Red "eye" of My Pretty Pony????

I like Geckzilla's RGB photo...I can recognize the "lobes" now...the other is too TWO dimensional looking to me...

:---[===] *

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 17, 2015 5:59 pm

FWIW. I took the original 555W and 814W FITS files from the MAST site, used FITS Liberator to do a log conversion, brought the two images into Photoshop and combined them into a single image weighted as

Red channel = 120% 814W
Green channel = 50% 814W + 50% 555W
Blue channel = 102% 555W

Rotated and cropped to match the APOD version. That's it. I certainly could have done more to match the colors, but all I was interested in was a sanity check that the data description matches the image. Which it clearly does.
hst_06119_10_clp.jpg

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by geckzilla » Sun May 17, 2015 5:11 pm

Today's APOD is certainly mapped to Orange / Cyan with F814W / F555W because that's the only data available for this particular view of it. It was captured in wideband RGB as well as three narrowband filters with a different dataset. This one was taken with WFPC2's Planetary Camera. All other Hubble images of this nebula are taken with the Wide Field Camera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field ... y_Camera_2

Astronomical imagery with scientific purpose will continue to defy your expectations, Ann. It's always going to be hard for you to interpret scientific imagery as long as you continue to expect things to follow the standards of astrophotographers who primarily create their images as works of art.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 17, 2015 4:51 pm

Ann wrote:
Chris wrote:
The short wavelength data is mapped to a blue-biased cyan. The long wavelength data is mapped to a red-biased yellow. That is, the shorter wavelengths in the data are mapped to the shorter wavelengths on the display, and likewise for the longer wavelengths.
It doesn't look that way to me.
You're the one that provided the link to the data page for this image (or one that used very similar processing and the same data). It's pretty clear about the mapping.
But I found some information on this page...
That's for a completely different image (Herbig-Haro 32). Confusing because it's what you get when you follow the link from a release that contained four nebulas in a single composite image.

I believe the mapping is as I described above, and as the image fact sheet provides.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Sun May 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Chris wrote:
The short wavelength data is mapped to a blue-biased cyan. The long wavelength data is mapped to a red-biased yellow. That is, the shorter wavelengths in the data are mapped to the shorter wavelengths on the display, and likewise for the longer wavelengths.
It doesn't look that way to me.

But I found some information on this page:
Filters: Red: F675W (R), Green: F656N (H-alpha), Blue: F673N ()


So we have a general broadband red filter which is mapped as red, a narrowband H-alpha filter which is also covered by the red filter and which is mapped as green, and a narrowband SII filter which is redder than the green filter and which is mapped as blue.

All the filters are basically red, and the filter mapped as blue detects a redder wavelength than the filter that is mapped as green.

I'm beginning to understand my own color confusion in response to this image.

Excuse me, Forrest Hamilton, it really wasn't your fault!

Ann

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 17, 2015 3:49 pm

Ann wrote:I think the central star stands out more in the RGB image because of its bluish color.
Perhaps. But the star is of minimal interest in this image. Stars are usually of low interest, since their characteristics are specified by just a few parameters. This image is about a nebula, not a star.
I wouldn't know how to interpret the colors, although I must say that the structure of the bright inner part of the nebula is much better revealed in today's APOD than in the RGB image. Why is that?
As a rule, you interpret the colors by looking at the color mapping:

R = 814W (broad near-IR with an upper cut below H-alpha)
G = 814W + 555W
B = 555W (broad visible with a lower cut above H-alpha)

One reason for the image clarity may be the decision to block most of the hydrogen emission. Another is that the near-IR component shows some structure that is blocked by dust in the visible component.
In any case, it seems to me that today's APOD was made from images taken through two broadband filters. The colors chosen for the final image appear to contradict the established practice to use blue (or cyan) color for the shortest wavelength exposure and red (or orange) color for the longest wavelength exposure.
The short wavelength data is mapped to a blue-biased cyan. The long wavelength data is mapped to a red-biased yellow. That is, the shorter wavelengths in the data are mapped to the shorter wavelengths on the display, and likewise for the longer wavelengths.

Re: APOD: NGC 2440: Pearl of a New White Dwarf (2015 May 17)

by Ann » Sun May 17, 2015 1:36 pm

I would like to discuss the "information content" of today's APOD (or rather, the information content inherent in the exposures used for today's APOD) as well as the information content of the RGB image that Geck posted.

I think the central star stands out more in the RGB image because of its bluish color. Others might disagree. In today's APOD, the central star, even though it has an orange halo, is still whiter in color than the other stars, again suggesting that it is different from them.

In the RGB image, much of the nebula is green. I would guess, although I don't know, that the green color corresponds to OIII emission. Other parts of the nebula are reddish-brown, which I interpret as dust.

In today's APOD, the innermost part of the nebula (actually the central "hole" of it) is faintly orange, while the outer parts of it are slightly blue. The parts in between are generally purplish-white. I wouldn't know how to interpret the colors, although I must say that the structure of the bright inner part of the nebula is much better revealed in today's APOD than in the RGB image. Why is that?
Geck wrote:
This is actually one of the few planetary nebulas in Hubble's archive that has wideband Red, Green, and Blue filtered data available. Of course, no one processes it with just those three because the narrowband imagery is just so much nicer to look at since it brings out the nebula much more clearly
I think you are saying that today's APOD was made from narrowband images. But is that true? I followed the above false color image link of the caption and came to the Fast Facts page of Hubble Heritage. The way I interpret the information there, NGC 2440 was imaged through just two filters, F555W and F814W. To the best of my understanding, F555W would detect but not single out OIII emission, and neither filter would detect Ha. Both filters are broadband filters.

So the way I understand it, today's APOD has not been made from narrowband exposures. Why is it, then, that it reveals a lot more detail than the RGB image? I would have guessed that today's APOD was made from fairly recent Hubble exposures, but that is apparently not true. The exposures appear to be from 1995. Perhaps the exposure time was longer. I have no idea.

In any case, it seems to me that today's APOD was made from images taken through two broadband filters. The colors chosen for the final image appear to contradict the established practice to use blue (or cyan) color for the shortest wavelength exposure and red (or orange) color for the longest wavelength exposure. I expect, for example, that the all-but-empty central "hole" of a planetary nebula will be green from OIII emission. I don't expect to see a lot of dust in that "hole" at all. If today's APOD had mapped the exposure through the F555W filter as cyan and the exposure through the F814W filter as orange, then the innermost part of the nebula should have been cyan in color. There should probably be almost no trace of orange in there due to a lack of dust.

Interestingly, in the RGB image part of the "hole" of the nebula is bluish in color. Another part of the "hole" was greenish. In today's APOD, the part of the "hole" that is blue in the RGB image is orange here, and the part of the hole that is greenish in RGB is slightly bluish here.

Could it be that Forrest Hamilton has mapped the image taken through the infrared filter as blue and the one taken through the visible filter as orange? If so, there is most certainly no law forbidding anyone to map the longest wavelength exposure as blue and the shortest wavelength exposure as orange. But I think it would be slightly unexpected, and it would have been helpful if this kind of mapping had been spelled out clearly in the caption of today's APOD.

Or perhaps, indeed, the coloring of today's APOD is even more creative. Perhaps Forrest Hamilton has indeed colored his processed image according to his own sense of aesthetics. Again there is nothing wrong with that, but again, it would have been helpful to be told about it.

Ann

Top