Lee_P

1 hour ago, 900SL said:

Any update on this filter Lee?

 

Yep, the review is all written but Askar have asked to see it prior to publication, as a courtesy to them. They said they hope to read it on 28 Dec - tomorrow! Then I'll be able to share the review. 

Great result 👍

44 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

Lots of people do this and end up going mono in the end... Weigh up the options.. .. mono is actually faster,and has been said more than just a few times..

From that article it gives the viewpoint that the duel narrowband filters are on par with the normal narrow band filter... I don't think so .. he says he can't tell the difference.... Really... Mono has and always will produce cleaner images because every pixel is assigned to the colour it's designed to.. not nearest neighbour values

I don’t say that dual narrowband is on par with normal narrowband filters. “To be clear, Mono plus filters has advantages over OSC plus dual-band in many cases, and dual-band filters aren’t effective for every telescope or every target.” And no, I generally can’t tell from a single image whether it was taken with a mono or OSC camera. There are plenty of imagers here on SGL taking really stunning images with OSC cameras.

I think that mono vs OSC debates tend to have laser focus on what will give the absolute best image quality. The answer to that is mono. But then the debate ignores a lot of important factors, including budget, complexity of set-up, and – vitally – what the imager would actually find most fun to use.

So, I don’t think there’s a single answer to “OSC or mono?” It depends on the astrophotographer in question. To simply dismiss either OSC or mono is to take a very limited viewpoint.

I've written an article here about Mono and OSC that you might find useful.

Very impressive.

12 hours ago, Xiga said:

Ps - I read a few comments where people where saying they weren't seeing much improvement in non-stellar details. I think this could be down to not using the Manual PSF option. Here's a video that describes it pretty well. You can skip to 10:30 for that specific bit

Thank you so much, I wasn't getting good results but after dialing in the Manual PSF it's making a big difference. @powerlord, if you, like me, were just using the automatic settings, then I recommend giving this approach a go. It's outlined in this video from 7:20.

2 hours ago, tomato said:

That’s a cracking image,  not sure if BXT has made a contribution but the detail on the cluster galaxies is excellent.

When I see my subs graded in quality order I always agonise about where to make the cut, so I admire your resolve to leave out a third of your data, but the end result speaks for itself.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

This makes me wonder, if BlurXTerminator is good at correcting for issues such as guiding errors, should we be more lenient on the subframes that we allow into our stacks -- or still, as I do, axe data fairly brutally to ensure only high quality ingredients go into the pot? 🤔

I really like this, and thanks also for including the overview of your processing techniques. 

26 minutes ago, simmo39 said:

Thanks Lee, Hows your new toy going?

It's great thanks, basically a bigger version of the FRA400 with a focal length of 1000mm. I've written a review with example images here. 

These are all great, especially given your light pollution. I think my fave is the Flaming Star and Tadpoles, the framing is spot-on in my opinion. 

Fantastic image, really making good use of your Askar FRA400 💫

Thanks for sharing, I really like that image. The annotated version is impressive too. 

19 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

I did actually read that shooting full colour/broadband can sometimes be hindered, rather than helped, by using aggressive LP filters, like my L-pro? basically I live in supposed Bortle 7, but I have awfully bright main road white light street lights, that are extremely difficult to deal with because they're obviously white light, so they're broad spectrum, so my L-Pro and other LP filters aren't much good to combat them? ( I may be wrong? ). 

The filter might help you, it might not -- I can't say, unfortunately. It depends on your levels and sources of light pollution, and the kit you're using. I recommend doing some experiments and comparisons to test. Be as scientific as possible

4 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

Aww thanks Lee! I am a very eager learner so hopefully in time i'll start getting good at this amazing hobby!

My goodness that is a lot of total exposure/integration time! Tbh Lee, when I had just started out learning about astrophotography, I used to think I could get great images of DSO's with only a few minutes of subs/exposure, but I'm quickly learning that it really does matter how much light you collect on a target, even a target as bright as M45!? may I ask, did you use any filters for the m45 imaging? I recently purchased a Optolong L-pro 1.25" Filter, to deal with bad LP outside my home, and I was/am amazed at how much of a difference it makes in combatting local LP!? Did you use any CLS or LP filters, or indeed a Narrowband filter? Really sorry for questions Lee, I am just trying so hard to absorb and learn as much as possible.

 

No worries, questions are good -- assuming the OP doesn't mind their thread going temporarily off on a tangent! 

* No, I didn't use any filter for the M45 image. I don't use any filters for broadband targets after I tested some and found no benefits. Read more here. Note that my my camera, a ZWO2600MC-Pro has an in-built UV/IR filter. 
* For narrowband targets I used to use an Optolong L-eXtreme, but have now upgraded to an Optolong L-Ultimate. Read more here. I've also been using Askar D1 D2 filters. Review coming soon.
* Long integration times are key, especially from urban areas as vlaiv demonstrated with his calculations. I've written tips for getting long integration times here.

2 minutes ago, wesdon1 said:

Your M45 image is one of the best I've ever seen. The nebulosity is substantial, and colours are beautiful. May I ask, how many minutes of total integration did you get to achieve this image? ( btw, I am using terms like "integration" because thats what the pros say! I am a newbie and am YEARS away from being even half as good as yourself and other pros! LOL ).

Wes.

Thanks, you're very kind. All the imaging details can be seen on the webpage here, but the direct answer to your question is that the image is 660 x 120-second subframes, totalling 22 hours of integration time.

Don't worry about being a newbie, learning astrophotography is a long journey and no-one has all the answers. (Except maybe vlaiv 😂) SGL is the best place to ask questions and learn. I pick up a new piece of useful info every time I log on!

3 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

That is a really fantastic result.  Does the moon add much to your Bortle 8 site light pollution?  I think imaging in the full moon is possible, but it needs a lot more data.

Thanks  Yes, the sky is appreciably brighter when the Moon is up, especially close to the target. But there's still signal to be collected despite all the noise! I treat city astrophotography as a marathon, not a sprint. Every imaging project is multi-week. And what with the weather here, I can't afford to squander any clear nights. What gets me is people in the countryside that say they don't image when the Moon is up. I think, "my skies with no Moon are still brighter than yours with a full Moon!" 😂

Personally, I don't worry about what the Moon is doing. If the skies are clear, I'll collect photons. Good processing helps enormously with combating the Moon (and other sources of light pollution). This image of M45 was taken over two weeks, with a bright Moon nearby for most of that time. No filters used. Would it be better had there been no Moon? Sure, but I'm happy with the end result.

I like Askar refractors. The smaller ones in particular are lightweight, and relatively easy to use for beginners.

Crikey, that's quite a shot!

@ngc1535 I'd love to get your thoughts on why I'm not seeing much improvement using BlurX on the nebulosity in these stacks -- is it because I need a higher SNR, as was suggested earlier in this thread? Thanks in advance if you're able to help!

2600MC is a phenomenal camera. Couple it with an Optolong L-Ultimate -- or second-hand L-eXtreme if so constrained by budget -- and you'll be a happy imager!

9 minutes ago, rnobleeddy said:

- Happy to wait a few months if something is coming soon?

As good as it is, the 2600MC is a few years old now. I guess a replacement must be in the works, but I haven't heard any rumours.

1 minute ago, Gary Clayton said:

As you say the main change seems to be in your stars, I think that this down to the low signal to noise ratio in your images and it looks like longer integration time is needed, I have had good results with my own images using this tool.

Ah drat, the Elephant's Trunk photo is 22 hours of integration already... My light-polluted skies don't make things easy! Thanks for checking 👍

Would anyone mind trying BlurX on some freshly integrated stacks of mine to see what a difference it makes? I've given it a go and while I definitely see tighter stars, the difference in the nebulosity seems to be minor, if visible at all in some parts. I'm wondering whether I'm doing something wrong in executing the process; or perhaps my expectations are just a bit off. Really, I want the "wow, what a difference!" reaction that others seem to be getting 😂

I've given this a try. I must be missing something, because although it does a good job tightening the stars in my images, for the life of me I can't see much difference at all in nebulosity. I want the same "wow, what a difference!" reaction as are in the videos 😂

I've given it a quick test. It did a good job of tightening up my stars, but I didn't see a huge "day and night" difference to nebulosity. Maybe I need to tweak the settings.