Gina

Thank you Huw Been having a look round the area of sky that's visible ATM and couldn't see anything more interesting than Cygnus so I decided to do a bit more on that, increasing exposures from 30s to 60s again with 100 subs in the run. Here is just one of them - full frame.

Oops forget to flip the image to put it the right way round so here is a correction. I've also tried a bit of noise reduction. Rotated so that N is upwards.

Amazingly, the sky is clear ATM And I'm imaging at 55mm focal length - FOV about 20° x 15°. Cygnus area. 30s exposures with gain of 500 and temperature -25°C. Here is a single sub histogram stretched. Full frame PNG.

Yes, it is Also, power distribution and fuses.

And here is the view across the valley to the far hill - full frame PNG. Captured in SharpCap. This is with the 3nm Ha filter. Lens is at full aperture (f1.8). Full resolution of 4656x3520 pixels is available on this upload - click image, click on "Full Size" in bottom left corner and click image for full size. Visibility is poor today so the far trees are rather hazy. The black area bottom right is the eastern wall of the observatory.

Here's a photo of the new rig with 55mm f1.8 lens mounted on the EQ8. Lens fitted with standard lens hood and then the dew shield I made for the 135mm lens added. It wants some sticky tape to secure it though.

WOW!! That's great Thank you

You mean it has built-in image capture? Capable of doing an imaging run of say 100 subs of 120s?

Now 3D printing parts for the 55mm f1.8 lens - adapter ring for camera support plus focussing ring clip and quadrant gear. I'll take and post a photo when finished.

Very interesting I plan to change over to Linux/INDI/KStars. What capture software are you using for long exposures? And what sort of computer? I'm thinking of Raspberry Pi 3 - probably more than one.

Thank you Wim - your advise has been invaluable And yes, I think it proves the viability of using the ZWO camera with a half decent refractor.

I think I have pretty much proved that I can capture the Soap Bubble - it just remains to refine everything to improve the image. If we get any clear night sky in the next week I think I shall try something else that can make use of the 3nm Ha filter (the only thing viable with a bright moon out) such as a yet wider FOV than the 135mm f2.5 lens provides, by which I mean the 55mm f1.8 lens. I might ditch the FW and put the 3nm Ha filter right on the camera with the adapter provided. That will prevent the vignetting that I would probably get with FW and such a wide aperture. There are so many things I want to try with the new camera that I don't want to spend too much time on each one at the moment. Once I find out what this camera can do with the various FOV options I shall get down to some serious imaging runs.

Thanks Wim - I'll give it a go

The MN190 would also be the one to use for the Crescent Nebula. I would put the DSO in the centre of the frame though - of course The limiting factor will be the seeing though as the resolution would be around half an arc second or less. This might be partly alleviated by using short exposures perhaps but whether it will be possible to reduce exposures enough is another matter!

I don't think this is the best rig to capture the Soap Bubble - the MN190 would be better. 2.5x the focal length of the Esprit. Here is the above image cropped to a rectangle 2.5 times smaller, showing the coverage of the MN190 with ASI1600MM-Cool camera.

With the new OAG + EFW2 the measurement from field flattener to camera front is 50.5mm so the back focus is 50.5 + 6.5 = 57mm. This compares with the specified 54.9mm so that's only about 2mm too much.

Here's the full frame uncropped. This was using 93 of the 166 frames captured. In spite of dumping all the bad frames this result is still poorer than the previous run with mainly 150s subs. The sky was definitely not as clear and there was the focus shift. I may try combining both runs but really it wants a new run with the gear fixed!

Now used Blink in PixInsight to reject yet more poor frames, copied good ones to another folder and applied StarAlignment plus ImageIntegration. Result coming up...

Dumped some bad frames from last imaging run and got this - cropped to Soap Bubble area.

I've been carefully examining the optical path components used the other night for the Crescent and Soap Bubble viz. Esprit scope, OVL OAG, EFW2 and ASI1600MM-Cool camera. Also, comparison of the OVL OAG and the one I bought from ebay a few days ago. The OVL OAG finger screws that hold the two parts together don't hold them very accurately and there had been movement. This would explain the change in focus. The new OAG although very similar is slightly different. Instead of notches in the slotted part the new one has tapered sides and tightening the screws pulls the parts together such that a flange on the slotted part rests up against the other part, fixing both alignment and focus. Changing to the new OAG should improve matters. I was expecting an adapter and a couple of other bits from FLO by now but they seem to be delayed in the post. The weather forecast for the next five days is dire and unless it changes there will be no chance of any imaging in the foreseeable future so there's no hurry except that I want to sort this out ASAP

I've been given a link to a tutorial on using a tool in PixInsight that will check each sub and work out how good it is and give it a rating and hence a weighting to control how much it contributes to the final result. I shall be applying that to the subs I have and see if I can get a better result. In previous imaging runs with this new camera all the lights were of similar quality and I just used the lot with equal weighting but this last lot were with varying cloud. Of course, I could take the view that the latest imaging run was a duffer due to periods of light or heavy cloud and wait for the next clear night sky, but to be able to make use of nights with intermittent cloud could add to the number of viable imaging nights.

Looking at individual subs I can see one problem - the focus has changed during the run of several hours. I guess this is due to ambient temperature change or maybe due to flexing in the rig. Once I sort out some adapters to use the SX mini FW it might be better. Also, I could avoid the drift and field rotation due to less than perfect PA. During the 5 hour run the view of the sky moved by about 400px in X and 250px in Y or about 10% of the frame size. Rotation was 0.18° according to PixInsight. Individual frames only showed very slight oval star shape. It might be possible to improve PA a bit more with drift alignment.

Had a reply in the software forum with a recommendation of which PixInsight processes to run for this. The result from running the BPP is decidedly poor - much worse than my previous run - so I does need poorer lights removing from the stacking. This could be done manually or using some tools in PI to measure the quality of each light sub. PI seems very powerful but so much to learn - which I knew Far more powerful the Photoshop.

No reply to PixInsight question so I decided to press ahead with the whole 166 lights and see what PI did with them. During registration it rejected 29 of the 166 leaving 137 to stack/integrate, which it is now doing.

Overnight I captured 166 Ha subs of the Crescent and Soap Bubble some of which are fine, others with no DSO at all and some mediocre ones. Makes sense to cut out the totally duff ones but what about the mediocre ones? These show a full range from almost fine to just a little of the Crescent showing. So should I let PixInsight decide what to do or should I arbitrarily dump the poorest frames? I should add that to go through 166 frames looking at each individually is a long and tedious job, of course, so what I really want to know id how good is PI at rejecting poor frames? Maybe I should repeat this question ing the software section - PixInsight thread...