x6gas

It'll work as is.

The built-in Bhatinov on the WO RedCat is also clear.

Ian

Astounding image for a OSC camera - that QHY 128 and the other full frame QHY cameras are generating some really excellent images.

Is it difficult data to process Yves?

48 minutes ago, Jezphil said:

Thanks Ian. This link leads to a page titled 'Capture' and has a button 'download capture for Windows'. All very promising, until you download it.  You get a file that offers a menu of options:  Dawn, Dusk, Infinity, but unfortunately nothing named 'Artemis' or 'Capture' which is bizarre. If you have a zip file, that would be brilliant!

Ah sorry about that; I hadn't checked what was at the end of that link - my bad.

However, if you run the installer and install the core software you should find that Capture has been installed any way.  It should be installed in the default directory which is usually C:\Program Files (x86)\Atik Cameras

There should be an application file called ArtemisCapture.  Right click on that and select create shortcut, the system should tell you that you can't create a shortcut here and ask you whether you want it on the desktop instead and if you say yes an icon should appear on your desktop.

I have just tried it and it definitely works for me on the latest core software release for Windows from here: https://www.atik-cameras.com/software-downloads/

I hadn't remembered, but clearly Atik don't make it very easy to find!

I am pretty sure that Artemis, AKA Atik Capture is still part of the core PC software distribution.  It's also available as a standalone here: https://www.atik-cameras.com/capture-software/

I don't think there is a Mac OS version which is why it may not have been included when you downloaded it to your Mac.

Let me know if you have any problems as I definitely have the zip file of the software distribution that includes Artemis Capture.

Cheers, Ian

I couldn't find circular, rigid, plastic air-con pipe in anything bigger than 6" diameter.  I wanted 8" or 10" but now I've done the pier I don't think I would need anything bigger.  I poured the base (75 cm^3) and the pier at the same time, though, with rebar between the slab and pier and metre long M16 threaded bar sunk in from the top.

I've seen people using corrugated waste pipe for larger diameters.  Once the concrete has set you can always cut off the pipe and render it to get a smooth finish if you wish... and can be bothered.

Reuters 14 Sep 11:00 ET / 11:00 GMT

SPACE-EXPLORATION/VENUS

Potential indicator of alien life detected on inhospitable Venus

Scientists have detected trace amounts of the gas phosphine in the clouds of Venus, a potential indicator of life on Earth's inhospitable neighbor because on our planet this molecule is produced by microbes that inhabit oxygen-free environments.

Very well done @Montana - fantastic haul of images over the - what is it 7? - years of the competition.

Wow!  Thanks so much... I feel very honoured.  Congrats Spongey for the win, and MartinB and Whistlin Bob for the honorary mention.  Someone said it in the competition thread, though: we're all winners having the opportunity to process such great data.

Well done!

32 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Sorry, I think it's a mess. As a photo of Andromeda it's worth 6/10 at best and the gimmick with the stars may be art, but it's bad art and shows that the imager does not understand the effect he is trying to create. The reduction in star size towards the vanishing point is not wrong in principle but it should be accompanied by a reducing sharpness towards that vanishing point. What we have is the reverse, so the supposedly foreground stars are blurred and the more distant ones sharp, in painful visual conflict with what is intended.

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it Olly!  Perfectly possible - and not at all unusual - to have something far away in focus and things in the foreground out of focus.

Agree it's a mess, though, and the more I look at it, the less I like it.

1 minute ago, gilesco said:

Well, yes, an interesting method, but I still much prefer the image of M31 on your website to the one that won the competition!

And why go to all that trouble if you could get exactly the same effect in software?

To be honest from a technical perspective I think it would have been a much better image had M32 and M110 been in focus with only the stars blurred to give a sense of movement / dynamism.  But hey, fair play to guy and good luck to him.  Sure wish I'd thought of it and now had £10k burning a whole in my pocket!

Well I guess there has to be something different to catch the judges eyes.  They must have had dozens of really top notch images of M31 alone and it must be very hard to judge.

I actually don't mind it as a picture but it's not really my thing which is why I haven't bothered submitting anything to this competition for years.  I am surprised that the effect was produced mechanically and I'm pretty sure something very similar could have been done in software relatively easily.

As others have said, your results are pretty much what would be expected with your kit, data and conditions.

We are all trying to dig out faint details and in broadband images like this dealing with light pollution is a big issue.  The data you collected with a near full moon close to the target will mean that data will be heavily compromised - the glow from the moon will be washing out the fainter details of the galaxy - and if you include those subs in your stack it will reduce the overall signal to noise ratio.  This is why many imagers will use moonlit nights to check their kit or image narrowband targets.  At the very least you should aim for a target as far from the moon as possible but even then the results will be compromised.  Better skies may help a bit if there is less air pollution to scatter the moonlight, but it won't make a huge difference and it really is better to avoid broadband imaging of deep sky objects if the moon is a factor.  You can always image the moon, of course, or even widefield shots of the brighter planets...

As I say you really want to be able to process the data (stretch it) to bring out the fainter details and the bigger the difference between those details and the background sky the better.  As you stretch the data, though, you'll be bringing out the noise in the image as well as the faint details.  As others have said, stick to one exposure time and more data is the key here, so long as the quality is good.  The stacking software can easily take care of satellite trails and even the odd subexposure with less than perfect stars but it is important to exclude subs that have a poor signal to noise ratio - i.e. that the target is getting washed out against the background.

You don't have enough dark frames and that will mean that you are introducing noise to each light frame during the calibration process.  You are better off without them unless you have at least 16-20 in my opinion.  These should be taken at a similar temperature to your light frames - within 2 or 3 degrees won't make much difference.  If you keep a note of the temperature when you take your lights you can build a library of darks at, say, 0, 5, and 10 degrees C over time that would cover you for lights taken at a temperature of -3 to +12 or so.  This is another good reason to keep your light frames to specific times as each dark needs to be the same duration as the light.

All in all I think your results are pretty good considering the conditions!

Clear skies and stay safe, Ian

Grange Farm on the Isle of Wight?

Also there is this website: https://www.campsites.co.uk/search/dark-sky-campsites

Agree this should be a sticky!

Another lovely image Brendan.  I do envy your skies but more so your processing skills.

On my monitor the top left looks a little pink in comparison to the bottom right but this is a tough object and you have once again delivered on the data.

2 hours ago, jonathan said:

Yes, I've heard of Bob's Knobs, I think it must be time for those.  I had a thought that perhaps the screws have become stiff over time (I haven't adjusted them for many years), perhaps they've corroded with dew or something like that.

I feel that I should remove the secondary module from the corrector plate purely so that I can see what's going on in there.  There is a central disc on the outside of the secondary, does that just flip off to reveal a screw?

I do recall vaguely unscrewing the inside half of the secondary but I don't rememeber what it looked like behind the mirror.  Time for another adventure in telescope maintenance!

I see on FLO there are many different Bob's Knobs - does anyone know which would be appropriate for my Celestron 8SE?  It has an orange tube but I bought it new only about ten years ago.  I'm thinking these will be the ones, I need to remove a screw to confirm that it is metric.

You can indeed buy thumbscrews cheaply on the Bay but Bob has gone to the trouble of researching which ones fit which scopes and, for example, ensuring that you can still fit the dust cover.

This might help identify what you need, though:

http://bobsknobs.com/SCT/page26/C8.html

Ian 

Hi Jonathan,

The secondary carrier on my Edge 11 also became loose (I can't honestly recall whether the scope arrived like this or if it just became loose).  I think you'll find that the carrier can be tightened against the corrector plate by tightening a screw collar on the backside of the corrector.

I also found that the collimation screws on the secondary were made of something akin to cream cheese and strip really easily.  It's very important (as ever) to use the correct size cross-blade screwdriver to remove them and I would then strongly advise to replace them with something better (many people use stainless steel thumb screws - aka "Bob's Knobs").

I have seen it said that the orientation of the secondary is not important now that computerised manufacturing is so accurate.  I am a bit sceptical of this in honesty as I can't see why Celestron would bother with an orientation pin in the secondary if it made no difference.  I think the only option to be sure is gradually rotate the secondary to "tune it in" and then marking the position before tightening the secondary carrier.

Aside from that there are two adjustments: the tilt of the secondary (which is adjusted by the collimation screws) and the position of the secondary in the aperture which is adjusted by moving the corrector plate.  This used to be achieved with shims but on newer scopes there are plastic adjusters holding the corrector.

To be honest I would try again with the tilt adjustment and see how you get on.

Otherwise I think the full process you'll need to go through is:

1. Adjust the secondary tilt as best you can - obviously ensure that the secondary is seated properly in the carrier
2. Check that the secondary is centred in the optical train
3. Adjust the secondary again to get collimation as good as possible
4. Focus the scope and then gradually rotate the secondary / secondary carrier until you get the best focus
5. Mark the orientation of the secondary and then tighten it against the corrector
6. Check the collimation again.

No way to dress it up: it's a painful process to check every avenue as there are quite a few possible adjustments (orientation of the corrector plate to the primary is another so be sure to mark that position too!)  If you can do the leg work with an artificial star that obviously helps.

Good luck.

1 hour ago, Lucas_M said:

Do you see chromatic aberration in images taken with mono or color cameras?
 

Both!  It doesn't matter whether you are using colour or mono if the scope is focussing the different wavelengths of light slightly differently.

You can actually see it in the wonderful image of NGC 253 that you posted recently... so perhaps it's the difference between broadband and narrowband imaging...

Anyway, top notch imaging!  Well done.

Mine was one of the first CEM60 mounts in the UK so I have had to update the firmware multiple times.  It is a bit of a faff admittedly but like Francis I have never had a problem updating the firmware.

Astounding!  Well done.

Steve Richards (@steppenwolf on here and author of two books that give great introductions into astrophotography) gave a brilliant StarGazine talk last night on basic processing that I think you'd find very interesting and useful - the YouTube video of the talk is already online.

38 minutes ago, Viktiste said:

StarNet (within pixinsight) is set to point to mono_starnet_weights.pb and rgb_starnet_weights.pb and works fine. I have never used project in pixinsight before, but I assume I should get all the process icons and images loaded?

You should indeed.  Note that the most of the 'action' is Workspace01 and - for me at least - the project opens on Workspace02 (that just has a few star mask things in it).

3 hours ago, Viktiste said:

Im trying to load the Pixinsight project linked in the OP, but all I get is this:

I do notice I get some of these errors while it is loading:

My Pixinsight version is the latest 1.8.8-6 Ripley (x64) on Windows.

Has anyone loaded this project successfully?

The latest version of PI has Starnet++ installed by default and it is different from the previous version, which was used to save the project, where Starnet was an add-on.

The project should work fine.  Starnet works in the same way though I had to point it at a couple of library files in order to get it to work.

HTH, Ian

I think that looks great Francis - especially for just 24 minutes worth of data.

Really looking forward to seeing how you get on with your new camera.

21 hours ago, maw lod qan said:

Amazing image. Those Celestron telescopes and a talented person with the data yields incredible result!

👍👍

Oh I can absolutely guarantee that it's got much more to do with the latter than the scope!