Lee_P

Thanks very much!

Hi folks, I'm looking to get an NVMe drive partly to speed up my astro processing, but want to make sure I get something that's compatible with my motherboard. Am I right in thinking that the following means I could use an NVMe 3.0 drive, but not NVMe 4.0? Or rather, an NVMe 4.0 would work but at a slower speed. Intel® Z370 Chipset : 1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2242/2260/2280 storage devices support (PCIE mode only)*2 1 x M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2242/2260/2280 storage devices support (SATA mode & X4 PCIE mode)*3 From my understanding, this could be a good match. But any advice here is very much welcome!

🥳 This seems to work -- thanks so much! Yep I guess I could do, but it seems that WBPP produces optimal integration settings as part of the many pre-processing stages it goes through as part of WBPP, so I figured it's best to go through WBPP. I could be wrong! @Fegato's tip seems to have done the trick though in any case. Fingers crossed...

Ah I think you're right, thanks. I'll study that thread and accompanying video!

Thanks, sounds promising, but how do you manually select flat frames to match the lights? I thought that using the filter name was the only way to match them up.

Looks like three images instead of the one I'm after..?

Could the 1600 data be exhibiting microlensing? That's a known issue with the camera, although I think it's just the case with bright stars so I'm probably barking up the wrong tree.

Hi all, I wonder if someone can help... I've been testing three dualband filters with my OSC camera, and between them have racked up 30 hours on a single target. So, I'd like to use WBPP to combine all these data into one single image that I can then edit. I have a separate series of flats for each filter. I've done some research and think that the trick is to use the "Add Custom" function, and then specify the filter used for the flats and lights, and then WBPP should be clever enough to work the rest out for itself. However, when I look at the pipeline, it looks as if WBPP will integrate each batch of three images separately, so I'll end up with three integrated images (one per filter), whereas I want one single integrated image (containing the data from all three filters). If that makes sense! I could just click RUN and test it, but it'll take about 18 hours to process, so I'm hopeful that someone here can tell me first if I'm following the correct procedure. Thanks!

Thanks so much for sharing your results. I really like these kinds of "real-world" tests. I found the video to be particularly well put-together as well. Sure, you're not comparing apples with apples, but you're open about that and it's still useful, especially as the price-points are similar, as you say. I think that the mono result is good but the OSC is better, especially when you consider the shorter integration time. Give that this is ultimately a test to see what you should image with, I think that image quality is just part of the answer. The other important question is, what did you find more fun to use, in terms of data acquisition and processing: the mono or OSC?

Thanks, maybe 5 mins on Vega was just a bit too harsh a test. I've tried the same test with an Optolong L-eXtreme and got the same halo. Maybe I should make it a bit shorter. This is the Vega example Optolong give:

Thanks vlaiv! For reference, I'm using an Askar 130PHQ (so no field flattener for me to remove). The filter is in a drawer as close to the ASI2600MC-Pro as it can be.

Speaking personally, I don't worry about what the Moon is doing at all. Long integration times coupled with good processing (shoutout to PixInsight here) means you can get good data regardless of the Moon. Also consider that I image from a Bortle 8 city centre; your skies with a full Moon are probably better than mine with no Moon! For reference, this image was taken from my city centre location with no filters at all. It's a long integration (22 hours) but almost all of that data was gathered with a bright Moon close in the sky. My advice is: * For broadband targets, don't use any filters. Image regardless what the Moon is doing - just aim for a long integration time and work on your processing. * For narrowband targets, use a dualband filter. Image regardless what the Moon is doing - just aim for a long integration time and work on your processing.

I'm currently testing an Optolong L-Ultimate filter. Optolong say that this filter doesn't produce any halos, but this was the result I got last night when imaging Vega for 300 seconds. I'm just after a sense-check: that's a halo, right? Or is it something else? (If I split the image into R G B then the "halo" is present in G and B, but not in R). For reference, this is the same but with no filter at all. (Apologies for the dust!)

Dualband filters don't just block the Moon; rather, they make it possible to image narrowband objects like hydrogen-rich nebulae. More info here. I'm currently conducting a dualband shootout: Optolong L-eXtreme (7nm) vs Optolong L-Ultimate (3nm) vs Askar Colour Magic (6nm). Nothing beats real-world tests as far as I'm concerned! I hope to have the results in a few weeks.

Just as a reference point, I have that same mount and guidescope/cam, and had this guiding last night (admittedly a personal best).

I shoot from a city centre (but using an OSC camera rather than Mono). I haven't found any broadband light pollution filter to be helpful, and instead rely on long integration times. More info here. Other people find them useful though; I think it depends on your kit and local sky conditions. So, if you want to go down the light pollution filter route, I recommend trying to borrow a few and test them out to see if any work, and if so which is best for you.

Great result!

Screengrab of L-eXtreme (left) and L-Ultimate autostretched data. Eight hours of integration time for each. L-Ultimate looks noticeably cleaner, has tighter stars, no halos, and happily lacks a green gradient that's present in the L-eXtreme data. So far the L-Ultimate is looking like an appreciable upgrade.

I'm after another target to test my L-Ultimate on, and might have to copy you! Did any other targets with strong OIII make your shortlist?

Looks great! How are you finding it compares to the L-eXtreme, red channel issues aside?

Odd, I'll check my L-Ultimate data later to see if the red channel has any issues for me.

I'm integrating a decent stack of L-Ultimate data right now, and Askar have sent me a Colour Magic 6nm to test too -- watch this space for a dualband shootout!

You're off to a great start, well done!

There was a brief gap in the clouds last night, which allowed me to get an L-Ultimate subframe to compare with L-Extreme. You can download them here if you're interested: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15ikNeCfVpr32ba2F3JtSjYx0WjJ74QO0?usp=sharing They're just two minute subs, taken from Bortle 8 skies using an Askar 130PHQ. To my eye there's not much difference; the L-Ultimate's stars are perhaps slightly tighter, and the frame a tad cleaner? But really hard to tell. Hopefully the differences will become more evident once I gather more data and make some integrated stacks.

I've got one, just need some clear skies!