Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lee_P

  1. I've tried using DSS but can't get a decent image out of it, so obviously I'm doing something wrong. Why is nothing ever easy?!
  2. You might need to be signed into a Google account? https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1simtZOsVAgwuqIT44uMkJ_a_jzGvhE3n?usp=sharing I used PixInsight. I'm a relative newbie, so wouldn't be surprised if I were doing something dumb that's causing the effect. Here are my settings:
  3. @CloudMagnet @Ouroboros @ Anyone Else That's Interested Could we try ruling out user error? Seems that me having messed up the pre-processing or integrations is a possible cause for the noise pattern. I've uploaded the files from the latest test here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1simtZOsVAgwuqIT44uMkJ_a_jzGvhE3n?usp=sharing Any chance you could try some integrations and see if you get the same effect? No worries if that's too much hassle for you! FYI the Lights folder contains the 10px drizzled data. The file that begins "REF" is what I used for my reference file. If you w
  4. I reckon it's 10 pixels on the guidecam. That's the highest possible setting, so I'd be surprised if it weren't enough. Re: stretching, I used EZ Stretch in Pixinsight.
  5. Lights are integrations of two-minute exposures. Flats taken using my ASIAIR PRO's auto flat exposure, which came out as 2.7s. Dark Flats 2.7s too, to match. Gain 100.
  6. @Ouroboros @CloudMagnet I've made a few more noise tests: increasing the dithering, and trying Dark Flats. Nothing seems to make an appreciable difference in the end. So either I'm getting something wrong in the image acquisition / pre-processing stages, or my Bortle 8 skies are forever cursed to have this level of background noise. I've been staring at these images for hours though, so maybe some fresh eyes can spot something I'm missing!
  7. Price reduced to £90, inc. recorded delivery to a UK address. Offers considered.
  8. I'm using an ASIAIR PRO, with the dither options being 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10 pixels. I've been using 3. Sounds like another test is called for, with a higher number. The variations being real is something I hadn't even considered
  9. Ooh interesting, I didn't know there was a D3. Thanks for letting me know. I'll give it a go and will report back -- might be a while though, given all the cloud that's forecast! p.s. my P stands for "Pullen"
  10. Ah, I calibrated them with Flats and Darks, but not Dark Flats. Something else to read up about!
  11. Having consistency in brightness was a good shout, it does make it easier to see the differences. I've tried to do the same with the original Iris Nebula data. Any thoughts on why the noise tests a few posts above show no real improvements after four hours? That's got me scratching my head.
  12. I went down the eyedropper route. In for a penny, in for a pound! Whaddya make of that?
  13. Yep, they were dithered. I'll have a crack at making the galaxies the same brightness.
  14. I think you're right actually. I'm confused, surely it should get smoother with more data? Even the pattern of noise looks the same. Have I messed something up in pre-processing? I'd be happy to do this, but you'll have to give me some tips on how! In the way I've been doing basic edits on these tests, the galaxy naturally gets brighter.
  15. As CloudMagnet suggested, I've repeated the experiment with an extreme crop of M81. Looks like the same result to me: the first 10 hours are the most valuable. Data after that are still useful, but the impact certainly isn't as dramatic. I'll repeat with L-eXtreme data on a nebula once galaxy season has passed!
  16. I think you're right, and it's funny you should say that because I've been editing the IKO Iris Nebula data trying to do exactly that
  17. Absolutely! That would make side-by-side comparisons rather difficult though. Not impossible I suppose, but too tricky for me FYI this is the final edited photo with all the data.
  18. Super, well feel free to suggest what you'd like to see on a website dedicated to OSC from a city, Knowing that the effort will be useful to at least one person might motivate me to do it!
  19. Thanks! The new-generation CMOS OSC cameras are very good. And work well with filters like the L-eXtreme. I'm increasingly coming to think that conventional wisdom like "don't use OSC from a city" and "you need a LPS filter" is outdated. To answer your question, for each image in this experiment I followed the same few steps in PixInsight. They were mostly to get a set of images that could be displayed side-by-side for fair comparison. * Crop * ColorCalibration * AutomaticBackgroundExtraction * EZ SoftStretch * SCNR (remove green) * Slight CurvesTransformation
  20. Great! I'm tempted to make a website dedicated to OSC imaging from city skies. We're a particular niche. Could be a project for the Summer...
  21. Thanks, I'm glad you found it interesting. No light pollution filter used. I haven't found them to be effective from my location. I posted another experiment, on this topic, here:
  22. Wow, I've never worked with such good data! I decided to focus in on the central nebula and try to bring out its details. PixInsight: * LRGB combine * DBE * ColorCalibration * EZ SoftStretch * Create a mask, apply LocalHistogramEqualization to add contrast to the central nebula * Starnet++ to create starless version and starless mask * Save starless version as a TIF and export to Lightroom... Lightroom: * Topaz DeNoise AI * Boost Clarity * Boost Saturation and Vibrance * Save as TIF and export to PixInsight... PixInsight * PixelMath to
  23. Good shout, I'll download that and will have a play. Might make me a bit depressed about the quality of my data though
  24. I'd be interested to see a similar experiment to mine, using your 30 hours!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.