bomberbaz

23 minutes ago, Elp said:

I generally use low gain so I can maximise full well, think it was in the region of 80-100, 30s subs. 60s glow starts to creep in, 120s it floods the sensor. No calibration files on this test.

Interesting and at odds with what I have been reading.

However it's all about trial and error and I am looking forward to having a play around to see where things will lie with myself.

Some interesting information on this page imaging with uncooled 224mc - Google Search 

3 minutes ago, Elp said:

With a bit of tinkering sure it can achieve great results. I tried it with my 130pds, spacings off but this is 16 minutes on m101, you can see the walking noise in it:

Not bad at all for 15 mins uncooled.

You can see why the dithering is needed, if your on 10-15 second subs I think I would be doing them less often but there is no serious amp glow.

Did you have any calibration files, and what length/gain were the subs?

1 hour ago, Elp said:

The difference between colour and mono guide star visibility is like night and day. I still use the 224mc for guiding duties sometimes, been trying to use it more for DSO imaging as it frames up close to certain objects but can't expose long with it. It's kind of useful for live viewing though.

I am wanting to use the 224 for similar smaller DSO that will frame better in it's smaller resolution as well as planetary when they decide to reappear. 

There is loads of info out there and what I am gathering is some fantastic results are being achieved using it on short, higher gain exposures.  I also believe there is talk of dithering to improve the short frame results as being essential as well as adding short pause between subs to prevent amp glow going crazy. 

Also don't even bother if the ambient temperature exceeds 15c, the background noise of the camera goes off scale beyond this apparently. 

I don't understand all the technical side of it but the application idea above makes good sense and should be fun playing around with.

I think it will be a case of trial and error making several batches of subs and calibration frames over a night on the same object and carrying out simple standardised processing to compare. The set one @herne gave on here for use in Siril would be a great standard basic process to compare. 

As for my tinkering with the 224, I am currently ordering in some pc peripherals and other bits and bobs to try and fashion a diy cooler. This will be without the peltier chip, the idea is to cool by a few degrees to just give it an edge over standard non cooled camera and allow you to squeeze that bit more out of it.

Re-process of the Cygnus Loop, I found some extra data and also added some new darks to the frames to calibrate out the amp glow.

Data is now at 30x 30secs Gain 212 (unity111) and 10x60secs gain 212, Total of 1 hours data. I am as much pleased with the processing (although a tad red/over stretched) as I am with my data grab. 

Hello all, quick update on the rig.

I have managed to source a 2nd hand WO wedge for £150,  heard nothing but good about them so why not. TBF I have really got better with the SW star adventurer one but I am given to believe this is another step up. I may keep the SW one unless someone wants one for the AZ Gti!

Also just bought one of these new ZWO ASI 120MM Mini USB 2.0 Mono Camera | First Light Optics  For the difference between new and 2nd hand I couldn't be bothered waiting. 

I am going to do some tinkering with the ZWO 224mc to make it a worthwhile winter option when the evenings are cooler. 

4 hours ago, Kon said:

The only filter I have, which was recommended to me by experienced SGL members, is this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

It is a bit tighter than the one that Steve recommended above.

My skies are quite dark, bortle 3, so I do not have a LP filter. On a good night I can see the Veil without a filter but it really pops with the OIII.

My understanding is they are both made by the same people, I looked into this same matter some months since. 

1 minute ago, PeterStudz said:

I have a cheap Svbony UHC filter. Despite what some say I’ve been surprised by this especially on the Dumbbell. Even on my little 4.5 inch reflector (I didn’t expect it to work on this at all) it transforms the Dumbbell from an Ill defined smudge that’s barely visible to something with structure. Obviously better in my 200p. The Ring is also improved especially in the 200p. With this filter plus 200p on the Ring my daughter described it as “bright”. 

If you could recommend something better I would be interested.

Both Nebula are emission nebula which are strong in the OIII spectrum. (Planetary nebula generally all are)

Svbony do one of those which I believe is reasonable but a Astronomik version is a class above and although admit ably expensive, would be a once in a lifetime type purchase.

Astronomik OIII Filter | First Light Optics

13 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Use the buds (Q-tips in the States) with pure isopropyl alcohol.  You may have to go over it 2 or 3 times to be sure you left no smears.

11 hours ago, woldsman said:

Just to add that you may have to order the pure isopropyl alcohol online if you are U.K. based.  Most chemists don’t stock it due to theft/break ins. Hand gel contains it but other stuff too so buy the genuine article.

The usual suspect Amazon were obliging. Thanks guys.

Hello all.

I have a ZWO DUO Band filter which had a finger print smear on it, so I decided to use baader fluid to clean it. 

Now it shows a purple smeared tinge to it from the attempted clean.

I have some de-ionised water available. Would a careful clean with cotton buds lightly dampened and dried the same method be adviseable?

2 minutes ago, Elp said:

Some detail in there for 15 mins, one for the mosaic. I tried it with 200mm which is ideal to fit it into frame, 135mm works also.

I will try again on it but try to frame it a little better and reduce the gain. Visually this is a great object to look at and imaged correctly it is also a pearl.

I had a quick bash at grabbing the Veil on my rig but as you can see A. it is just a little too big to fit well, @Priesters rig does a much better job and B. I tried to squeeze too much out of the camera and ended up with a lot of amp glow bleeding into the left hand side.

Still, it's not bad for 15 minutes of data and the stars are looking much tighter..

1 hour ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Probably just the raw frame, so no debayering used.

Colour cameras output a monochrome image with the bayer matrix on top, which looks like a checkerboard pattern over the image. Only after debayering is there any colour in the image at all, and since debayering uses interpolation that will change pixel values/guess them, it is not helpful for guiding.

This is what I was thinking, thanks for your reply. 

Steve

Hello all.

I currently use a ZWO 224mc for guiding along with a ASI Air+.  The guide image is B&W so am I right in thinking the software in  the AIR+ will be binning the colour pixels to make a B&W composite pixel to use in guiding?

thanks all

Steve

22 hours ago, Elp said:

Does it look the same if you don't bin, as I understand bin is not hardware dependent with most modern CMOS cameras and can be achieved via software post processing, you're probably getting decent guiding as it is, even mine around 1.5 RMS looks fine.

Are we on a different thread of thought here. I am referring to the guide scope which I understood automatically binned it's images as the system works on b&w only

49 minutes ago, Elp said:

What scope are you using to guide with? I use the 183mm with the main scope FL at 370mm, the guide is just over 200mm with a 290mm, so the FLs are near enough matched.

I use a 224mc as guide with a 30mm F4 guide. Main scope used with the 183mc is a 50mm F4.8. Similar FL.

I have actually just tweaked my calibration settings taking account of the short FL and the binned tracking image, I am hoping for a quicker calibration (5 or 6 steps) that in turn adds a little more accuracy.

My clear outside and ventusky apps are slightly at odds with each other, I am trying a different camera tonight to try and get to bottom of the odd star shapes. I am of the opinion that it may well be my ASI 183 mc pro where the fault lies but I need another set of files to compare. 

If it is the camera at least that would eliminate my tracking concerns with the AZ/GTi.  I will try and grab a little data on the owl to see.

@Pixies, welcome to the gang, have you had the welcome initiation ritual done on you yet 😉🤣

6 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Hmmm, CAMRAS, a bit too close to CAMERAS! 😂

Where EAA scores for me is for the galaxy season, where my scopes (and even large dobs) cannot see anything other than faint smudges. But for clusters, globs, doubles, planetary, lunar and even brighter emission nebulae, I’m really happy with visual. 

I really get this, the tiniest smudge visually gives you nothing but satisfaction of finding it and telling your mates about it, oh erm wait! 😉 

15 minutes ago, Ags said:

Looks like I am going to have to start the Campaign for Real Astronomy 🤣

oooh challenge. Define real astronomy!

NV  = night vision

3 minutes ago, saac said:

I tend to agree with this, in fact I can see somebody, maybe EV scope, offering an NV integrated set up,  now that would be nice. At a sensible price point of course.  That would be some time in the future though as NV is obviously too expensive at the moment.  I do think however there is a place for this sort of integrated "point and shoot " technology in amateur astronomy especially for outreach. 

Jim 

Sorry NV, did I miss something. Just gone back and can't see a reference!

26 minutes ago, paulastro said:

I'm tempted to go to this, as long as they let me across the Yorkshire/Lancashire boarder 😊.

From bits of information already released, it will be an epoch marking event.  I think we're going to be seeing some outstanding discoveries as future pics are released.

 

Come along but bring your passport. I will stamp it for you for a safe return at the cost of a pint of greyhound beer and a hotpot buttie!

Late to this party but here goes a potential solution for live streaming to an audience. 

You need a live USB connection to your chosen webcam to a laptop or PC but that is already established.

From there your guest audience should have received a prior invite to a ZOOM conference. (You may need a licence for this but that's another matter).

Use the zoom share screen from there, simples. 

This is based oop north (Lancaster) but there are others in the UK apparently!

https://portal.lancaster.ac.uk/intranet/news/article/lancaster-university-chosen-to-showcase-first-ever-colour-images-of-early-universe-in-morecambe?fbclid=IwAR0JDxWZcFd9T3RRsuL_lJw-SwD3RK5TC87pVRT1Cv1D_xy509SuNk2WDrg

3 hours ago, Buzzard75 said:

It's really going to depend on the object and how bright it is, brighter ones obviously requiring less time. I will typically stay on any given object for a minimum of five minutes to get an acceptable image. Brighter objects like globular clusters can probably be done in shorter time. When working star parties, it's not uncommon for me to be on the same object for at least 10 minutes as we tend to have long lines with hundreds of people. The people who come around and look at the object later will certainly have the better view than the one who looks at it after 30 seconds. While I'm sure there are gains to be had beyond 10 minutes, I feel you start to get into diminishing returns and the image doesn't really improve that much. So ballpark for me is 5-10 minutes.

Sorry I probably missed but is yours v1 or v2?

Reason I ask is one would presume the times to resolve a decent image should be lower if the v2 sensor is superior!

13 minutes ago, Mike Q said:

This is what you see at the local astronomy outreach program.  There will be people looking through the scopes right up until Stellina starts working.  Then the crowd shifts to the robot.  

meow meow 🤣