Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ollypenrice last won the day on September 5

ollypenrice had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23,814 Excellent

About ollypenrice

  • Rank
    Neutron Star

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Imaging, Cycling, Thinking, Literature, French culture, Mountains...
  • Location
    South east France, Lat 44.19N.
  1. The data's clearly good and will support lots of processing routines and attempts. It would be a great data set to use for experiments in processing or on a processing course. I'd begin by looking at the colour gradient roughly right-left but a little different in distribution in the two renditions. In Photoshop it would take seconds to measure the background sky values in R and G and B at various points. I don't know how that's done in PI but a colour-neutral background sky is my first building block. I never take a second step till until I have that. In the first image a screen grab shows blue too low on the left hand side and way too low on the right. This can be hard to judge by eye so I always measure. Olly
  2. I wouldn't assume Takahashi would be better. I like Taks, having had the FSQ85 and now using an older FSQ106N Fluorite, but they are not perfect. Whatever the spot diagrams say, in practice the TEC140 with TEC flattener beats the Taks in the challenging blue channel. I've never had tighter stars in OIII than Ha in any scope. Always the opposite. Then again I've never had a good OIII filter. My Baader is so-so and my Astronommik is poor. Surely your issue is troubling you more out of curiosity than because it impacts on your final images? Olly
  3. Thanks Rodd. All is well and home tomorrow. Olly
  4. I'm in hospital at the moment (completely mended, it seems!) but I'll put a full size up when I can. Plenty of my 11meg/106 images have been posted with only a tiny down sampling to allow for internet and JPEG effects. Olly
  5. Yes, the chip's an oldie but a goodie... It also got runner up slot in the APOTY comp with Orion. Olly
  6. Steve, you might find this thread interesting. Olly
  7. This 60 mp 35mm camera is, on paper, what the FSQ106 has been waiting for. I hope it works without microlensing or other issues and if it does I don't see it being resistible! But CMOS cameras have their share of issues so I won't be an early adopter. To be honest I love working with the old Atik 11000 camera. I've said before that the numbers are lousy - QE and resolution at 530mm - but the data is so sweet. Lovely stars, lovely star colour. 3.5"PP doesn't resolve the finest details but stars are absolutely not blocky. This is a fallacy and the 106/KAF1100 has more APODS than you can shake a stick at. Olly
  8. Two thoughts: 1) if you're going to swap to a 106 much of the extra cost will go into giving you a corrected circle your new camera cannot exploit. Surely this would be a waste, though there is no way past it if you sstick with 1.25 filters which are on their limit with the APSc chip anyway. So what would you hope to gain with the 106? With the small pixels of a CMOS camera you won't be short of resolution in the 85, you'll have a wider FOV and a better telescope. See point 2. 2) The ED 106 can be a bit of a devil, quite apart from the QC issues which have plagued all FSQ modelss of late. It is terribly prone to temperature-induced focus drift. Your 85 and our 106N Fluorites are better in this respect. I would only change to a 106, myself, if I were also going to go to full frame or larger, like the 35x35 Kodak, but then you need even bigger filters, the square ones. An APSc CMOS in the Baby Q would be great, I suspect and, for me, preferable to the same camera in a 106ED. We already know that the QSI683 works sweetly in the Baby Q. Olly
  9. I entirely agree about the quality of Rob's imaging and with this image in particular. He's gone for a more contrasty curve than I did in the stretch, making the dust lane and filaments much darker. This is something I could do with our data as well but I'm going through a period of conservative stretching at the moment! I felt my images were developing a hard look so I'm trying to keep things softer. Maybe I overdid it this time. There's a close double in the right hand end of the galaxy which gives another interesting point of comparison between large refractor and larger reflector. I suspect we miss Rob more than any other retired imager. I certainly do. Olly
  10. You need to know the Bayer pattern of your camera. Each pixel has either a red, green or blue filter over it but which is which? Is the top left pixel, for instance, red or green or blue? Using a stellar image is not the easiest way to find out. Maybe the camera manual tells you? If so you need to set the debayerig pattern in your software to match and you should get the right colour. In my rare forays into one shot colour imaging I've done an exposure of a multi coloured terrestrial target and simply tried all the bayer patterns (there are not that many) till I got credible colour and noted then applied that Bayer pattern. Olly
  11. I was aware of something wrong with the Mk1 version of this image and, indeed, my previous 891 renditions: somewhere along the line I seem to damage the little dark threads rising from around the core roughly at right angles to the plane of the disk. I parked this problem in my copious To Do bin and would have ignored it but from an email from Laurin Dave pointing it out. This gave me the guilts so I pulled my socks up and reworked the core of the luminance. Dave then suggested dropping the saturation to improve the little threads some more. Another excellent critique, which helped. Thanks, Dave. The little filaments now connect with the core. Olly
  12. The charm of PNs in widefield is imagining a time lapse in which all the medium mass stars produce their own. What a sight that would be but I'll happily settle for this one. What's your pixel scale, Gorann? I did this at about a metre and 0.9"PP. Like you, I used shorts for the core. Olly
  13. Quality all the way in. Olly
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.