M31 and M33 with Fuji X M1

[big bedroom]

I picked up a cheap used Fuji camera, mainly for wide field shots, but have been impressed by it so far.

There aren't many DSO images on the net with Fuji X Trans sensors so thought I'd put a couple up for anyone interested.

Both were taken on a Equinox 80 at native f6.25 and are 3 min subs at iso1600. M31 was a stack of 22 and M33 a stack of 27.

No calibration frames were used. I did shoot flats and bias but these didn't work. The flats didn't even remove the dust bunnies.

I need to get my head around processing the RAF files as with flats I think I can pull out a bit more detail.

[wxsatuser]

Interesting,

Yet to point my XM1 at the sky, might give it a try.

[gnomus]

Excellent. Those Fujis are great cameras ... and very much lighter than a DSLR.

[laudropb]

Very nice images. I must have a look at this camera.

[The Admiral]

I chose my Fuji X-trans camera for general photography, but with half a mind to long exposure sky photography. It does produce, to my mind, relatively clean images at longish exposures and high ISOs. This contrasts with the MFT sensor in the Olympus E-M1, for example. You do have to deal with the non-Bayer array though, which is easy enough in general photography, but I'm not sure how well all the astro software copes with it. I found DSS wouldn't handle the RAWs properly, needing a prior conversionto dng.

Ian

[big bedroom]

I chose my Fuji X-trans camera for general photography, but with half a mind to long exposure sky photography. It does produce, to my mind, relatively clean images at longish exposures and high ISOs. This contrasts with the MFT sensor in the Olympus E-M1, for example. You do have to deal with the non-Bayer array though, which is easy enough in general photography, but I'm not sure how well all the astro software copes with it. I found DSS wouldn't handle the RAWs properly, needing a prior conversionto dng.

Ian

I converted the RAFs to TIFFs with Silkypics and stacked them in DSS. The flats didn't work tho, they made no difference to the image at all! Need to investigate this a bit more.

Pixinsight apparently can handle the RAFs but I don't have it yet. Hopefully DSS will next time it's updated.

[The Admiral]

DSS uses DCRaw to convert the RAWs. The latest version of DSS uses a version of DCRaw which claims to convert RAFs. However, I couldn't get this latest version to work with RAFs. There's a thread here.

Ian

[Space Cowboy]

Very impressive!

[big bedroom]

DSS uses DCRaw to convert the RAWs. The latest version of DSS uses a version of DCRaw which claims to convert RAFs. However, I couldn't get this latest version to work with RAFs. There's a thread here.

Ian

I can't get DSS to work with them either. I've got a trail version of Neblosity and have had no joy with that.

I've found Silkypix isn't ideal as well. It puts black rings around certain stars, where the Jpegs from the camera are fine. When I add the flats to the stack it thins the histogram in half and leaves in all the dust bunnies! I'm not very experienced with flats so it may be user error but my iPad method seems to work with my cannon.

Looks like I might have to bite the expensive bullet and get Pixinsight!

[gnomus]

Don't want to wade in on something about which I don't have a great deal of expertise, but couldn't you get SilkyPix to batch convert the RAFs to Tiffs and work from them?

The other thing to say is that you have managed to get some pretty fine images with a relatively small amount of imaging time. Collect a few hours of data and I think these would be outstanding.

PixInsight is great - I own it. But if you haven't used it before prepare yourself. You've seen Harry's videos and the Light Vortex tutorials?

[The Admiral]

Alternatively, you can use Adobe dng converter and batch convert to dng. You can download the converter for free, but don't use the latest version as it doesn't seem to produce dngs which work.

Ian

[laser_jock99]

Makes a change from the usual 'Canon fodder'.

[gnomus]

Alternatively, you can use Adobe dng converter and batch convert to dng. You can download the converter for free, but don't use the latest version as it doesn't seem to produce dngs which work.

Ian

Agreed. If DNGs work that would probably be better. Have you any idae why the flats and so on ddn't work?

[The Admiral]

I should have said download the latest, but set the compatibility to 6.6 or later, rather than the default 7.1.

Sorry gnomus, I have little experience with DSS, I can't help you on that one.

[big bedroom]

Don't want to wade in on something about which I don't have a great deal of expertise, but couldn't you get SilkyPix to batch convert the RAFs to Tiffs and work from them?

The other thing to say is that you have managed to get some pretty fine images with a relatively small amount of imaging time. Collect a few hours of data and I think these would be outstanding.

PixInsight is great - I own it. But if you haven't used it before prepare yourself. You've seen Harry's videos and the Light Vortex tutorials?

I did covert them to Tiffs first as DSS doesn't recognise the RAF files.

I had the trial version of Pixinsight when I first started a year ago and it looked quite daunting! That's why I ended up with Neblosity, might try it again now I'm a bit more used to things.

[big bedroom]

Alternatively, you can use Adobe dng converter and batch convert to dng. You can download the converter for free, but don't use the latest version as it doesn't seem to produce dngs which work.

Ian

Ah! I thought it was just a plug in for Photoshop. I'll download it tonight and give it a go. Thanks.

[big bedroom]

Agreed. If DNGs work that would probably be better. Have you any idae why the flats and so on ddn't work?

No idea about the flats. I use a white screen on the iPad and the images come out bright blue!

One thing I discovered tho, is I had the lens corrector setting turned on for a 500mm lens. Need some clear skies to try it again with it off and see if that works.

[gnomus]

I wouldn't worry about the blueness. What happens when you try to calibrate with them?

[big bedroom]

It makes the histogram for the stack thinner and leaves all the dust marks on.

It may be the conversion to Tiffs, I'll try again after converting everything into DNGs. It may be the lens optimiser setting on the camera too, this is supposed to help with vignetting.

[The Admiral]

Ah! I thought it was just a plug in for Photoshop. I'll download it tonight and give it a go. Thanks.

No it's a free standing application, from https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows for the Windows version. It's a large file, mind.

You'll probably find the dng files look a fair bit darker than your tiffs, because Silkypix will have applied a camera profile to the RAW on conversion. That's what I found, as I initially experimented by converting my RAFs to tiffs in Capture 1. As I say, download the latest version and click on preferences to change the default compatibility to "v6.6 or later", or else the dngs won't work in DSS. I gather Pixinsight will convert the RAFs directly.

Ian

[big bedroom]

No it's a free standing application, from https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows for the Windows version. It's a large file, mind.

You'll probably find the dng files look a fair bit darker than your tiffs, because Silkypix will have applied a camera profile to the RAW on conversion. That's what I found, as I initially experimented by converting my RAFs to tiffs in Capture 1. As I say, download the latest version and click on preferences to change the default compatibility to "v6.6 or later", or else the dngs won't work in DSS. I gather Pixinsight will convert the RAFs directly.

Ian

Have you tried flats with it yet?

I suspect Silkypix is smoothing the flats when converting them, rendering them useless.

[The Admiral]

No, sorry, I've only briefly played with it and I didn't take any flats. I used image files, same duration images with the scope covered, and short duration images with the scope covered: whatever you call those.