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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

BenDavis

Members
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BenDavis


  1. Looks great! I do think your losing a bit of color from the luminance mask though yes. I usually don't use more than 35% opacity. 

    Thanks. Yes that's what I suspected too. Im at 82% opacity and 82% fill here!

    Here it is at 35%

    get.jpg

    What do you think between the two?

    • Like 2

  2. Lovely clear sky here last night so had a go at M51, not sure if the luminance layer in PS is too strong? How much percentage would most use or does it depend each time?

    (Taken with mn190 & Atik 383L with Baader RGB filters, 4 Hrs Total)

    post-35206-0-64426600-1424600258_thumb.j

    • Like 5

  3. Ben, I was near Uley on Saturday night which is not far from you I think?

    I looked at the various forecasts and they said 'clear' ish. I checked Sat24 and it showed that lump of cloud coming down so I was not hopeful.

    We decided to chance it anyway, setting up under clear but milky skies. However, they just got better and better and we had a great night observing.

    You can just never tell, often looking out of the window is the best way!!

    Sounds like you had a great night. Yeah Uley is a bit more south of me, I bet you got some good views up on the Uley hill? Unfortunately the clouds came over head after I had setup in clear sky's.

    I was probably only just under the clouds to the north if it was clear in Uley.

    I have a velux window in the spare room which I put in last summer it's a great way to double check now without going outside!

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  4. The swear word filter is an automatic process.

    You type in a sear word (mild or otherwise) the software replaces it. No one is giving anyone three lashes.

    Thanks Ant, I did only mean this in jest, apologies for any miss understandings to any one. You have a great site here.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  5. same here, clear all day, BBC promise clear night, scope out after tea. Looks a bit cloudy so leave it half an hour and then its fully cloudy - darn. Back inside to stargazer . . .

    thanks for sat24, looks real useful :smiley:

    Yeah its good, at least you can only blame yourself with it!


  6. May be I'm a feeling a little tired from lack of sleep due to having young children waking up all hours but tonight I got annoyed as after lugging out the scope and kit which weighs over 50k and setting up, the clouds rolled in.

    I do blame myself in part as I only checked the bbc forcast for our postcode:

    post-35206-0-02968900-1422128674_thumb.p

    But clear outside said:

    post-35206-0-25710900-1422128812_thumb.p

    But what I usually check is sat24 which always seems the best to use to predict the weather my self:

    X marks me spot!

    post-35206-0-20469500-1422128896_thumb.p

    It just seems crazy that I have to do my own weather forecast my self every time I use the scope all night!?

    I guess I'm not the only one!?

    At least I'll get some sleep tonight.... hopefully!

    • Like 3

  7. By the way, that photo looks awesome!

    Thanks! Yeah I had lots of issues with dss, I think that's normal with comets!?

    I used the mount for tracking, no guiding this time. The images from dss all had star trails (as that's the best I could get, I think love joy moves too fast to obtain otherwise!?) which I used PS to remove and then I added a single sub of 60seconds to give the stationary stars for the background.

    Hope that helps/makes sense!?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  8. Ahhh, thought so. I found its just about tolerable at f6, but at f5 and below those 1.25" filters start cutting into the light cone - and that was with the FW butted directly against the camera.

    The only (easy) way out of it I found, was to upgrade to 2". Worked out to be a bit on the expensive side though!AH

    Ah yes that's what puts me off at the min, although if I ever go narrow band I will go for the 2" ones but will have to save up even more!


  9. Having looked at the two options, I think PI is worth a go, I have requested a trial license.  I feel if I have to learn something I may as well learn a tool designed for the job.

    Plus it's a lot cheaper than PS when I come to buy a license.

    I've been thinking the same. Start watching those you tube PI tutorials as I have found out this week there's a lot to learn!!


  10. Ive seen this dark corner pattern before (I mean the really dark parts, top and bottom left).

    Are you using 1.25" filters with the 383? If so, that is your cause right there - and no amount of flats will fix it.

    In regard to the slight shadow to the top left (which causes the bright patch in the processed image, bottom left), that is the shutter. To be ultra safe, make sure your flats for any filter are at least 10 seconds long. In fact, the flat lengths I did with my 383 the other night were 28 seconds (Ha).

    For a replacement lightbox, use a large monitor running either notepad or my preferred choice (Al's Virtual Lightbox).

    Thanks Uranium, yes they are the 1.25 filters. I have been contemplating upgrading to the 2" but think I can live with it for the time being.


  11. With a shutter your flats need to have exposures long enough to eliminate the wipe of the shutter. I think we see this in the top left?

    That said, there is nothing unusual about having an assymetrical vignetting effect in flats. Focusers and optics are not perfect - which is why we take flats.

    The shadow of an OAG appears along one of the sides of the flat if it is going to appear at all. That certainly isn't the case here.

    Olly

    Thank you Olly, that makes sense.


  12. I got flats working today, wahoo (problem with ccd shutter not closing fast enough so did stupidly long flats and less light). I think this is improved, would be good to have feedback on colour, processing etc.

    I know the stars are over processed, something to correct for next time I guess!

    get.jpg

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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