x6gas

Whoa! Top drawer.

Stunning.

That's a very nice image. Why don't you experiment processing your data using just the five filters and see if you like the results? Plenty of lovely HOO images out there... I must admit that I had the same issue and got fed up with constantly having to change the filter carousel; I always seemed to have the wrong filters on the rig so in the end I bit the bullet and upgraded to a seven filter wheel and i am really pleased I did...

Very nice work. Congrats.

Thanks Goran. I did apply some gentle high pass sharpening in Photoshop but I didn't want to overcook it so it's interesting that you think I could have gone further. I think when I reprocess the data I'll stretch it less and see if I can sharpen it more... I used to have a number of PS techniques in my toolbox that I think would have helped with this image so I probably need to dust those off and relearn them. There are also some 'actions' that I used to use regularly that I also didn't deploy here. The OIII data is a bit soft but the Ha is good so I may also try making a false luminance and using that for the sharpening. I'm finding the hardest thing to get back into is getting a feel for what the data is telling you about how to process it. Something that Olly, and Sara, and Barry, and others do so well... Thanks again, Ian

You're very kind mate. Ain't true, but you're very kind. I honestly can't believe how much I've forgotten about processing in Photoshop, but it is coming back... And then there's learning PI which at the moment is just following recipes without really knowing why or what you're doing but I am sure it'll make sense one day!

Very nice. really dynamic rendition.

<smashyandnicey>Wise words, mate!</smashyandnicey> Thanks Martin - appreciate the comments especially since it was your primers that started me on the imaging journey! I do know what you mean about the green... All this feedback is helpful and I'll take it in to consideration when I reprocess the data. Thanks again, Ian

Thanks Martin. Fair points, and I always welcome constructive criticism; it's the only way we improve. I don't really like inky black backgrounds - especially on images of emission nebulae - but I think maybe you are right and I could have brought the contrast up a bit and the brightness down a bit... or do you think I've just overstretched the data? I must admit that the workflow I followed in PI applied the pre-canned standard stretch to the data and I do think it was a tad more than I'd usually go. I promise not to push out a million versions but is this reduction in stars and tweak to the contrast and brightness an improvement? I'm still [re-]finding my feet in terms of processing...

Many thanks Kinch. Following something like my old PS workflow I found that the data got noisy very quickly. I'm not sure if that was something to do with using PI for the calibration and I will go back and reprocess the whole data set using my old workflow to see if there is a difference. I think I can do a much better job on the PI version, though, if I'm less aggressive in the background noise reduction steps... Thanks again, Ian

I managed to get three clear nights on Sh2-101, the Tulip Nebula in Cygnus. This is a narrowband image in the Hubble palette and I was pleased to catch a bit of the curved shock front created by the microquasar Cygnus-X1 in the top centre. I'm still trying to get back up to speed on processing after a long break and I am also [still] trying to learn Pixinsight… I'd had trouble with calibration and in particular overcorrection of my flats but I now seem to have a workflow that delivers decent result (whether they are better than my usual process in AstroArt 5.0 I'm not sure!). Anyway, this was interesting for me as I processed the calibrated data in both PS and PI. I was following AmyAstro's YouTube tutorial for the latter and massively overdid the noise reduction which meant that the image had that characteristic shot-through-Vaseline look. The PS version was a bit too noisy and I wasn't that keen on that either. I was going to go back and redo the PI process (and I am sure I will) but I blended the two and this is the result which I like a lot better than either of the originals! Kit - Mount: CEM40; Scope: Tak FSQ85; Camera: Atik 460ex; Filters: Astrodon; Guiding: Atik OAG, QHY5L II, PHD2 Data - 35 x 600s each of Ha, OIII, and SII for a total integration of 18 hours calibrated with Bias, Darks (which I never usually bother with), and Flats. And since I tend to leave a bit too much green in my images for many, here's the version after HLVG:

My concern with a metal pier is that they ring like a bell. No problem in an obsy, I presume, where it is protected from the wind and accidental bangs or you can fill it with sand or something else to dampen it. If you are decided on a metal pier then it all depends on whether you can find someone reasonable to fabricate it up for you. If you have mates handy with a welder or a friendly garage mechanic then it can be done quite inexpensively but if you go to fabricator I think you'll find you won't save a great deal - but you do get it made to your own spec, of course... Powder coating it alone would cost £50-75 quid at my local place (though I've no idea how that compares).

I made mine; I've been very happy with it, it doesn't offend the wife too much and it was pretty easy to do. I poured the base and pier of mine in one piece. Dug a 75cm cube hole, 3/4 filled with concrete, set a 1.5 meter length of 6" round air conditioning ducting in it filled the tube with concrete and topped off the base. The tube has 6 x 1m lengths of threaded rod it in with long hex nuts on the top set into the concrete so presents six mounting holes for a top plate. The hardest part of the job was making a wooden former to ensure the correct orientation of the bolts / keep the threaded rod in the right place.

That's true. I need to figure out the interplay of the horizontal orientation of the scopes as you point out and the off-centre impact that @Laurin Dave mentioned... I guess I could just chuck it on the mount and take some measurements rather than trying to calculate it... Thanks for the reply!

Of course! That makes perfect sense... but makes it much harder to judge what would work. My measurement / memory / typing were wrong and the actual width of the dual scopes is 400mm not 500mm as I originally posted so there is a bit more relief (the other measurement included bits of the bar which obviously doesn't matter). Can really use a shorter bar as I need to accommodate the motorised focuser and allow for full rotation of the filter wheel...

That Ha image looks absolutely stunning John. It's a target that I think renders very nicely in monochrome...

Hi all, I've always wanted an obsy and always wanted a dome and as my 50th lap of the sun nears, I've decided to start making the dream a reality. I'd really like a dome (not the place for a convo on dome versus ROR) but I have a question - what kind of headroom is 'safe' for the width of the dome shutter versus the scope(s)? I am looking at a ScopeDome but the shutter aperture of the 2m dome is 'only' 590mm. The largest scope I have is 280mm aperture so plenty of headroom there but I want to mount my two FSQ85 scopes side-by-side on an ADM mounting bar and that means that the scopes are 400mm (not 500mm as I originally posted) dew shield to dew shield. The dome will be fully automated but 190mm wriggle room seems pretty skinny and I don't want any possibility of the dome getting in the way of the light path or vignetting etc. The 3m dome has a 1m shutter aperture - and I love the look of it - but the 2m comes fully assembled and automated which I confess is quite attractive. Any thoughts from dome owners or anyone else with an opinion would be very warmly welcomed... unless that opinion is to go for a roll-off-roof! Thanks, Ian

I'd missed that this was unguided! Amazing for 120s subs... I've kept hold my Atik 383L as I've always intended to strap a camera lens on it, mount it on top of the scope I'm imaging with and get some wide field. I really must do this...

I really, really like this Adrian. Beautiful colours and there is something about the four frames hanging together that I find really pleasing to the eye. Nice work.

As I say, Rainer, I haven't got as far as definitively eliminating user error but once I have I will indeed get in touch with iOptron support. Sadly they weren't as helpful in my most recent communications with them as they had been in the past and I note that there does appear to have been an update to the main board and RA board at the end of April this year and I can't 100% recall if I have this version installed... But otherwise, I completely agree and gave a lot of feedback on the firmware of the mount in the first months after release.

I'm very interested in this thread... I returned to imaging this year after a bit of a hiatus and my trusty CEM60-EC - which I have been very happy with and which pretty much delivered nice round stars - has been causing me problems too. I wasn't sure if it was because the mount hadn't been used for a couple of years or if it was because I'd done a better job of polar alignment (the RA guiding isn't bad but it's significantly worse than the Dec, ruining the star shape). However, I was just beginning to suspect that it was the firmware (I upgraded to the newest version when recommissioning the mount) but my new CEM40 arrived before I could properly test this and I've been playing with the new mount since... I strongly suspect that the firmware upgrades have significantly improved unguided performance but caused interference with guiding. I have older versions of the firmware archived so can revert and I will be checking to see what the outcome is. I really don't know why iOptron have never implemented a firmware option to disable the encoder - that was a request pretty much from launch. The CEM40 is a lovely bit of kit, by the way. Nice looking thing (CNC machined, anodised ali), light, USB connectivity and it's delivering nice tight stars out of the box with default PHD2 settings albeit I've only tried it imaging at 450mm f/l so far.

Really excellent capture and process Carole - great work!

As has been said, you can remove the whole corrector / secondary assembly - it's not hard, you just have to be careful. If you are doing this, you might like to consider flocking the inside of the scope at the same time. As I understand it (and IIRC) the corrector glass has usually been marked to help orientation but this is not always the case. If not use a marker pen to mark the glass and the scope OTA. Needless to say, use the correct size cross-blade screwdriver as the screws can mar quite easily... I am led to believe that the orientation of the secondary mirror is not crucial; that would seem to be borne out with my experience at least; I had the same issue as you in that my secondary was spinning so I had no idea of the original orientation. Star tests and analysis with CCD inspector didn't show any appreciable difference with different orientations of the secondary (and I wasted a fair few clear nights confirming this), but that could, of course, just be my scope...

Great to see the outer shells showing up - and with 5 minute exposures too. It's a long time since I imaged M27 but I think it's still one of the images I'm most proud of. I found that tweaking the colour scheme a little to use a lighter blue and more orangey-red brought out more contrast in the shells. As Olly has said, there should be more to come from the main nebula.

Surprisingly difficult target considering its angular size and you have done really well. Really well. One of the best M33 I've seen, in fact.