WolfieGlos

Thanks! Makes sense actually, the individual subs only show the brighter parts so yes, I kind of see it. Thanks very much Olly!

Yeah, I get a similar result but then as I lower the setting to 0.6 ish I find I get a lot of colour noise pixels which destroys the detail. I’ve never tried it that low before though, so might give that a go, thanks!

Really nice image Lee, well done 👏 Haha, I was thinking only fools but that was Grandads funeral when they put the vicars hat in 🤣

Haha, to be fair it's not really that obvious. I've had a few goes at re-processing this image tonight, I feel it is an improvement on the original but still struggled to bring out the soap bubble. I think it just fundamentally needs more time (and aperture) to bring the faint structure out.

Wow, what a difference! I always use AstroDeNoisePY but I get mixed results from it, generally getting "plastic" looking results. I always untick the "normalise" image at the top left so it doesn't stretch it - but it still does slightly. Topaz looks really good. I think I'll get the trial and see what it does.

Nice image! Like simmo, I don't think I've seen it this close up before either.

Oh, synthetic bias. I remember reading quite a heated debate over on CN suggesting never to use them....but then again, I've never tried it so happy to give it a go. Yeah, exactly Here is the soap bubble, the whole noise reduced version of it. Nothing exciting on my image sadly. In fact, zooming in I really don't like how the nebulosity looks, much prefer it when the image is viewed as a whole. I might reprocess this again.

Thanks simmo! Thanks Alacant! I don't fully understand what you are saying. I don't use LNER on the camera or any form of in-built camera noise reduction. Using bias frames I thought were required for flat frame calibration? I don't understand the technicalities of this, it's more just "do this, and don't do that!". Stacked with Siril, I would have thought it would have taken care of all of this? But I am tempted to restack without darks to see what happens.

Well on the basis I have a ZWO ASI-120mm mini guider, EFW* and now 585.... I think I'm pretty much tied into the ZWO range 🤣 I tried the active cable at lunch today, thinking tonight looked good for clear skies. First time it was conflicting with the guide camera, and it turned out PHD was looking for a ZWO camera....and it picked the 585 naturally!! So after forcing it to use the 120mm, it worked 🙂 NINA gave me some great images of a tree through the heat haze. It also worked in lieu of the 5m USB2 cable, so at least I can just run 1 cable instead of 2. And of course...since 4pm....it's clouded over. Total cloud, and with no wind....it looks like that'll be 3 nights running predicted clear skies and nothing but cloud cover instead. One night I'll get to try this properly, and I'll see how it goes. Currently I'm wondering how easy it will be to focus (with the laptop in the house - so like said above, currently thinking VNC/Facetime), but I guess the EFW should help in this regard. I might upgrade in time to the Air (or alternative), but since posting this I have a gearbox problem with the car.....so that's where the money will be going to now it seems!!! Thanks all for the input, much appreciated. As always...there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.....

I wasn't going to image this one this year, but a change of heart with this weeks clear skies following the Full Moon led to 16 hours of data collected over 3 nights. This is more time than I have put into any image before but I was surprised at just how much noise still remained. I think with the heatwave, the DSLR seems to have suffered quite badly and what I was seeing was possibly thermal noise despite dithering and matching dark frames also applied. After running Starnet, I realised it was actually walking noise...which I now need to look at, since it has not shown up in my images since I started dithering when I got the HEQ5 in January. Despite the continued heat, we have been completely clouded over here for 2 nights now so I'm calling this one done now. After night 2, I noticed a faint bubble just below-left of the centre of the image. I thought I had incorrect flats and that it was a dust spot.....turned out I had captured the Soap Bubble Nebula! Although I have heard of it, I didn't realise it was located here so that was a nice bonus! It shows up a bit more defined in the image before noise reduction, but I suspect it will need a lot more time to bring it though. The third night I accidentally ran NINA capturing 6minute frames instead of 5minute, so I had to take yet more darks for that noise.... One thing I can't work out....why is it called the crescent? To me, it looks like a space brain..... Canon EOS 800Da + Starfield 102ED + 0.8 Reducer on HEQ5 ISO - 400 Frames - 128 x 300s + 52 x 360s (Total = 15:52:00) Calibrations - 50 bias, 35 flats, 26 darks (300s) + 12 darks (360s). Stacked in SIRIL Edited in SIRIL, Starnet, AstroDeNoisePY and GIMP Comments welcome 🙂 VERSION 1: VERSION 2:

Oh wow, thanks for the kind offer @Clarkey - but the one I ordered arrived yesterday. Yet to try it, going to aim for tomorrow but appreciate the offer mate.

Although I intend to get into plate solving soon, I currently use NINA for captures but Stellarium to control the scope position and frame things up manually, and like carastro, compare the image (star positions mainly) from a previous session. In Stellarium, you can input your camera and scope combo, and it'll show a framing box. Example below for my current target - note the scope/camera/flattener combo in the top right of the screen. I know I'm centred on a group of stars under the Crescent, with a double star visible on the bottom and 2 stars beyond the Revenant star on the left. 3 stars in top left corner on the nebulosity. For widefield I find this OK for cropping the edges out but I try to get as close as possible, then take a test shot and move slightly if needed.

Oh I see. Like tooth says, if you post a single sub (uncropped) then it can be seen.

What alcant has said is correct, but there is also another way. You can stack the second nights images together (using a script or otherwise), to create a second stacked file. You can then "stack the stacks" using a second script. Depending where you look online and who you ask, some people frown on it and others use it. Personally, in my limited experience, I've found no issues with it. Give it a try and see what you think. On this website https://free-astro.org/index.php?title=Siril:scripts there are some freely available scripts to download, and to do this you need the "OSC Preprocessing without DBF" - i.e. stacking without darks, biases or flats. After downloading and placing it in the scripts directory: 1) Create a new working directory 2) Create a new sub-directory in the new one called "lights" 3) Place both stacked files into the lights directory (you might like to rename the files, I usually call them "result_night_1", 2, 3, etc. 4) Set Siril's working directory to the new one. 5) Run the WithoutDBF script. Here's one that I'm currently doing, gathered 3 nights of data so far this week. I've had some images with 7 nights worth of data, limited by the short nights or clouds, etc. HTH

Much prefer this version, well done!

If you do start to learn it, I’d currently recommend using it in the standalone version. I use the GUI rather than the command line version. I find the one in Siril loses the star transparency, especially when recombining, and they have a see-through appearance. Give it a go, but that’s just my experiences with it.

Not sure what you mean by “have I got that right” by using a field flattener? For 15 mins of exposure it’s a pretty good image. Colour seems a bit “white” to me on this screen though?

For a first image that’s great! Especially for only 1.25 hours. Stars are nice and round and have good colours. What ISO did you use for 55s subs? You can add more time to bring out more detail and help to reduce noise. Taking it a step further, you could try reducing the stars using Starnet allowing the nebulosity to shine through. All part of the learning curve!

Funnily enough, I held it up to my ear last night to check that, and no there is no sound of a motor at all. To be fair I haven't, but I assume the cable is OK since the I get the "beep" at the start/end of when the software says it is moving - which suggests the cable is working, to a degree I guess. FLO have arranged to take it back to be checked, so will update when I find out. Thanks to Ian for the speedy responses and service as ever from FLO.

Wow, that's impressive! Another option then, thanks!

Thanks Robin. Our IT manager says the same...but just admits it just seems random at times! "Turn it off and back on again" When I was in contact with Alex at FLO (very helpful as always) about the 585mc, he also said USB2 should be fine with a powered hub, but as I said once I tried it, it just wouldn't work (over the longer distance that is). My 5m USB2 cable is a Lindy. The USB3 cable directly to the USB2 port on the laptop worked OK, but not when connected to the Lindy USB2 5m cable. So I've ordered an active cable, and if it doesn't work it'll be returned. Interesting thought about a powered hub at each end though, that might be a good idea. I'm getting the feeling that by the time I've bought all the cables, hubs.....I might as well just by a mini PC or asiair and go wireless !!

Detail in the core of the rework is excellent!

Both versions are great! Agreed you seem to have lost the OIII shell on the second, but the original image looks a bit green on my monitor in the background. Have you run SCNR and lost it on the second version maybe?

So the endless cloud seems to have cleared for, allegedly, the whole of the coming week down here, and of course that falls right on the period of the full Supermoon 😬 I had been collecting data on a broadband target prior to the Moon period, so I decided that rather than waste the clear skies I would image some star clusters instead. Always good during full Moon's, I decided to go for NGC 457 (The Owl - with the inclusion of NGC 436 at the bottom of the frame) and of course the double cluster in Perseus. I last imaged the double cluster on my Evostar 72ED over a year ago, and the difference in optics compared to the Starfield 102 is clearly noticeable. I lost 10 frames on the Owl due to high level clouds which I only noticed when coming to stack - long streaky lines were too obvious! Both were supposed to be 90 minutes of integration so the Owl ended up as 80 minutes. Dithered every 3 frames. Comments/criticism welcome 🙂 Canon 800Da + Starfield 102 + HEQ5. No filters. Both stacked in ASTAP and processed in Siril, AstroDeNoise and GIMP. 80 x 60s @ ISO-400: 90 x 60s @ ISO-400:

Oh, sorry, I didn’t realise what you had said. Interesting, I’ve never come across an “Active” cable before. That seems like it would do the trick then, especially if you had it working over 15m! Thanks Martin.