Kinch

Hi Eric. I use an PowerBox - V1  with absolutely no problems (SGP & EFW3). I note that the PowerBox V2 has USB3 outlets as well as USB2 - whereas mine only has USB2. I wonder if the problem is related to using a USB3 port (or perhaps a substandard USB3 cable in such port). EFW3 is USB2 as you know and theoretically USB3 is supposed to be backward compatible......but just maybe........not for the filter wheel?  Just throwing that out as a possibility!

42 minutes ago, Tayson said:

Where put photo for APOD? 

You can follow the instructions to submit here:  http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=40846

5 minutes ago, carastro said:

I have done it using Zoom. 

Thinking outside the box there Carole 👍 - sounds good/interesting.

I can't answer that directly Carole. I use a Foscam camera  - it has its own software.

11 minutes ago, Endolf said:

I thought I'd have a quick play with the latest pixinsight with starnet plugin to see what would happen

I realise that you said you were just having a play with StarNet......but I have to admit to detesting finished images with the stars removed. To me it just 'smells' of the imager not being able to process all the data and taking an easy way out to make a colourful image. ....and being able to hide that he/she cannot handle the stars in the image.

(I am not saying that here....don't get me wrong on that).

I would however be interested in other people's opinions on starless images.....are they acceptable in general? 

1 hour ago, morimarty said:

Thats just superb Brendan. 10 minutes and still nothing there. Wow that is faint. I can see it as been meticulously processed and it's well worth your every second spent Excellent.

Thanks so much Martyn - very kind words indeed.

12 minutes ago, Nigella Bryant said:

Do you monitor the telescope and mount using a webcam so you can see what's happening in the dome?

I have a camera in the dome - but I shut that down during photography sessions. At night, the IR lights of the camera are no addition to NB photography. I use the camera mostly just to check that everything has shut down properly - after the fact.....i.e. that the scope has parked and that the dome shutter has closed. when working, I can "see" all OK by keeping an eye on the software just doing its thing.

Screens have always been a problem for me - I could never get things right on each/all screens I might happen to use. Now - I seem to have got over that problem.

You might find a screen grab interesting....because you can see how both images COMPARE on my screen...(sorry I can't fit the full images in).

This is exactly how I control my scope in the Obs. Laptop out there connected to everything and I use either AnyDesk or Teamviewer to work the Obs computer from the house. I recently upgraded my house desktop monitor......but still have the old monitor sde by side with the new one.  When I connect via WiFi to the Obs laptop....its screen now takes over the old monitor screen in front of me in the house......thus I continue to work my house computer but keep an eye all the time on the what is happening on my observatory computer.

22 minutes ago, Xiga said:

Very nice indeed Brendan. Being so faint, it would be very easy to overdo the sharpening on this, but I think you've judged it perfectly.  

Thanks very much Ciarán - sometimes it looks fine to me and at other times I think I should do more......but I have spent too much processing time on this now.....time to move on 😏

Fantastic  - well done.

The difference is miniscule and nobody but you would notice if we were not asked to compare. Yes, the 2nd here is ever so slightly better.......

3 hours ago, Allinthehead said:

Superb image Brendan.

1 hour ago, sloz1664 said:

Great image Brendan and well worth the imaging time.

Steve

Richard, Steve,

Thank you both for the comments. I know I have matched this data time before, but itseems like I have been going back and back to processing this one forever. In the end - I am happy enough with it.......but happy too to be able to move on to something new.  🤓

15 minutes ago, x6gas said:

Really wonderful images Brendan - thanks for posting.

Thanks for commenting .... really appreciated.

2 hours ago, Physopto said:

That is a cracking image. I had a look at your website and, Yes I do prefer the wider view, but very close.

Derek

Thanks Derek. (Like me re the 2 images on the website - I think the wider FoV just pips the crop.....but I was not 100% sure.......hence putting up the two of them). 

I have done a final on Abell 85. Although I added more data, I think it was more time processing it that (for me anyway) has improved the image.  

(Higher resolution image as usual on my web site:      https://www.kinchastro.com/abell-85-ctb-1.html      )

A good start indeed. I must admit it is quite some time since I imaged this area and recall that I was never happy with what I had done.  Perhaps now (some years later) I could do better - but I will be looking to your final image to spur me on......fingers crossed that perhaps the forecasted cloud cover will not hold true.

I am not familiar with DSS (by that I mean that I don't use it). I do use APP all the time to do all my preprocessing and I find it great.  

Just a question.....were the Masters made with different software?

If not then you can do one of two things

1) If you are 100% sure the calibration frames are OK - just ignore the warning....it will still produce a final image.

2) Since APP works through it all reasonably quickly.....I would put all the calibration subs back in at the start of process and let APP do its thing. It will make new Masters which you can keep & re-use. (I have gone this route on getting a similar warning).

Thanks for the idea.....in truth, although I have PS I rarely use it and thus....cannot do very much with it. I guess I could also try something similar in PI ???. I was looking at other images of this object during the night and one I liked had a lot more OIII data than Ha data....hence my thoughts on which way I should go (i.e. get more OIII data). To date, my OIII data has not been the best and I have already dumped about 10 subs (over 1.5 hours) and still the background on the OIII master is very 'lumpy'........another reason that I want to try finish this by getting more OIII. I think I will have a chance tonight.....but I will stick with it over the weekend anyway. Perhaps by Monday, I will have a new 'final'    🤞 

1 hour ago, alan potts said:

26 hours, may not be a record but that is one heck of a lot of data

Thanks Alan......yes, a lot of data and perhaps more needed. (I am not commiting to that until I see how things go this weekend. From Monday next I think I will have to look for my next target.....too much time on one image is bad for the 'soul')

1 minute ago, MarkAR said:

Worth trying for some more Oiii it does look faint though.

As in my reply above.....the Ha is bad....but the OIII is even worse. But as you say....hopefully it will be worth trying for more....perhaps even another 6 hours of OIII.

25 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Incredible, nice to see such a great image of this very faint target.  

Yes.....one of the faintest objects I have attempted - can see nothing on 10 minute subs unless one adjusts the histogram way over......and even then, there is only a hint of something there. Of course a much larger scope would pull it in easier.

1 hour ago, Adreneline said:

Very nice and well worth all the time and effort you've invested so far.

Thanks for that. As is I am quite pleased but of course....we always want to improve 🤓

I have so many versions of this on my computer.....but I think this will be a final.....except that I live in hope to gather more OIII to bring out that blue a bit more. This, as is, is 15 hours Ha + 11 hours OIII + 3 hours RGB.  This particular version saw me making an HOO image then, trying to smooth things out a bit....brought Ha back in to make it HaHoo. After that I brought the RGB data in - only to coulour the stars. Hours of work - and quite pleased with this one.....but will be better pleased if I can get more OIII.

This is extremely faint.....I think those of you with CMOS might be better placed to bring this out stronger......though it is always a challenge to make it sit out from the background Ha.