Lee_P

I think it's more specifically that the development of dual and tri-band filters have increased the versatility of OSC cameras, rather than OSC sensors simply getting better in quality in-step with their Mono equivalents.

Optolong L-eXtreme is great.

Wonderful image, bravo!

This is great! Fantastic progress. One more tip for the road: don't aim for pitch blackness. Space isn't actually completely black. It should be a little bit lighter. If you make your background black then you'll be missing detail.

FYI these are all 2600MC under Bortle 8 skies. Broadband with no filter, narrowband with L-eXtreme.

I used to have a 1600MM with filters, but sold it and bought a 2600MC -- very happy I did, it's a great camera. I've made a whole website about OSC imaging, and you may find this article about OSC vs Mono to be useful.

That image looks out of focus to me as well. Maybe get some more opinions on that though? I'd expect an EAF to nail it. Satellite trails should be automatically removed if you use a particular stacking algorithm -- I think it's Sigma Kappa, but I'm not 100% on that. That would mean you could keep individual images with satellite trails in your stack.

I don't use StarTools, but had a crack at your image using PixInsight and Lightroom. Literally five minutes of work, so I was quite blunt in my editing. Just wanted to get an idea of what can be pulled out. There's a fair amount of data in there, especially considering it's a short integration. A few things to note: * I think that your focus is slightly off. I'd expect it to all be a bit sharper. This might be a limitation of the telescope optics, but my first guess is focus. * You've got some satellite trails in there. They should be removed during stacking, so maybe check your settings. * The dust bunny was annoying! Normally that would be an easy fix -- remove all the stars using Starnet, then clone out the dust spot in the starless image -- but Starnet didn't work, I think because your image is slightly out of focus. So I just cloned it out. Not sure how you'd handle this in StarTools but I'm sure there will be a good way. * Many of your stars have this strange pattern. Not sure what's causing it. Perhaps some kind of internal reflection? Others can diagnose better than I Overall I'd say that your data acquisition was a good attempt, and I think you'll be producing some really good images in the near future!

You can go to https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/ and click on your location. That'll give you an indication of your Bortle scale. It may not be completely accurate, but it'll probably be close.

The thing about broadband light pollution filters is that their level of effectiveness is very much related to your local sky conditions and the kit that you're using. Recommendations from other people are only of limited use -- what works for one person might not work for you, and vice versa. I tested a few light pollution filters and found that for me they either made negligible difference, or actually did more harm than good. More info here. Really, you need to get some and try them for yourself. I'm in Bortle 8 skies and for broadband targets don't actually use a filter at all, instead using long integration times to combat light pollution and get a decent signal-to-noise ratio. M31 was my latest imaging project too. For a reference point, here's a single sub: And here's a 24-hour integration, no light pollution filter: And here's the result after processing: So, my advice is to get hold of a few light pollution filters if you can, and give them a test. You may find one that works for you; maybe not. In either case, long integration times are your best friend when it comes to combatting light pollution when imaging broadband targets. (Narrowband targets do definitely benefit from particular filters).

This is great! Really sharp and lots of detail. One to print and hang on the wall? A bit of walking noise is evident, dithering would fix that.

I'm glad the review was useful, I'm sure you'll be happy with yours

Hi SGL, I've written a review of my Cygnus Astro cover here: http://urbanastrophotography.com/index.php/2021/10/11/review-cygnus-astro-cover/ The bottom line is that it's an affordable alternative to the popular but expensive Telegizmos covers.

I get these artefacts too, and clone them out using Photoshop.

I like comparison tests, thanks for sharing this Looks like your new 'scope is an appreciable improvement.

For context about my viewpoints, I should flag that science journalism is my profession. (This is me). I’ve worked in the press teams for Hubble, ESA, ESO, and the IAU – and have covered a lot of astronomy stories as a journalist too. Also, I recently organised a meeting between scientists working on JWST and science communication / public engagement professionals, to help both groups with conveying to the public just exactly what JSWT is and does. So, this is kinda my thing. You seem to have taken objection with the fact that a headline was selected to get people interested enough to read the article. That’s exactly what a headline should do! I’d agree that it was clickbait if it was completely outlandish – “new space telescope used to communicate with aliens!” But the fact flagged isn’t that. Again, vlaiv showed with simple maths that it’s accurate. I grant you that the fact on its own certainly benefits from clarification, and ideally that would be supplied too. But it wouldn’t fit into a headline. (Also, we’re assuming that the “100 times” was actually a headline). I also do training for science communicators, and teach the difference between accuracy and precision. If something is accurate, it’s true. If something is precise, it’s very specific. “Pi is three and a bit” is accurate but not precise. “Pi is 4.648265” is precise but not accurate. If you have experience in an area, such as we all have in astronomy, we tend to want our information to be accurate and precise. But when communicating to a lay audience, accuracy is important; precision less so. This can be a tough concept to get your head around, but it’s useful to know. The “100 times” fact is accurate but not precise, which may be why you don’t like it, but a lay audience would likely be fine with it. In short, I have no objections with the two points the OP raised; specifically, comparing the JWST to Hubble, or the “100 times” fact. The wording may not appeal to you, but I doubt you’re the target audience. Interesting discussion by the way

I think this is quite a cynical comparison, and I’d like to explain why. Any reputable journalists writing about JWST will be getting information from fact sheets produced by the JWST’s press department. Members of this department are professional communicators, not tabloid hacks, and it’s their job to raise public awareness of JWST. The statement given by the OP, “JWST is 100 times more powerful than Hubble”, will have gone through a lot of approval stages, including being checked by scientists working on JWST, before being given to journalists to re-use. And, as vlaiv aptly demonstrated, the maths behind the statement is sound. Sure, it’s a simplification, but that’s the nature of science communication – you’re often talking to a lay audience after all. And you need good sound-bites to get any coverage in the mass media. This is very different to the dubious statements printed on the side of cheap telescope boxes, where the motive is all about shifting units and making money, and the truth is bent to breaking point.

This is brilliant, very nicely done

You can image faint ones too. You need long integration times. The Iris Nebula is notoriously difficult, but here it is from Bortle 8, OSC, no light pollution filter.

Thanks! I found the processing really tough. We're always learning and getting better though, so I'll keep the raw data and have another go in the future. Haha, it's certainly possible! I'd love to do an experiment sometime, imaging from a proper dark sky site using all the same equipment. Bet I could match the quality in just a few hours, rather than the 24 needed here.

The general public have heard about Hubble, and know it's good. Herschel hasn't entered the public consciousness in the same way. I wrote this article (aimed at children) and flagged the fact that Webb will be much further away than Hubble 😛

My set-up sounds like the kind of thing that might suit you. Details here. For remote automation, the ASIAIR Plus is great. Review here.

You know we're into autumn when Andromeda Galaxy photos start appearing! This is 24 hours of data from Bristol city centre, OSC camera, no filters. Tough to edit, I hope to add some L-eXtreme data, and improved processing skills, next year. More info: http://urbanastrophotography.com/index.php/2021/10/04/the-andromeda-galaxy/

Mains power is best if you can. I keep my electrics outside permanently in a waterproof box. A regulated power supply is then connected to a splitter. Finally, two Lynx Asto cables go from splitter to my ASIAIR Plus and to my mount. A splitter is a good idea, but please don't go for the "Linkstyle" one posted above; from the picture I can see that the cigar adapter plug is a poor quality. The one I linked to is much better. So, to directly answer the OP's question: these leads are the best ones you can get to power your ASIAIR; and then your camera can be powered via your ASIAIR using a cable that would have been supplied with the ASIAIR. These DC power supply adapters should work too if going direct from a plug socket, but the cables look a little short to me.

Of use? http://urbanastrophotography.com/index.php/2021/09/27/diy-flats-panel/