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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

1 Follower

About Rico

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  1. That's stunning! That looks like 8 hours worth of stacked data from my dslr! I'm envious lol.
  2. What image processor are using? Pixinisght/Photoshop/Nebulosity?
  3. This is simply using a dynamic crop and the automatic background extractor in Pixinisight.
  4. First impression is that the original images are hugely misaligned. The stacker has registered the images and stacked them correctly and the bright part in the middle is the only coincident part of the group of raw images.
  5. Rico


    There's a lot of really nice detail there. Try and run a gradient exterminator in PS or background extraction in PI to get rid of the rainbow effect.
  6. It's seems to me that the diffraction spikes from the bahtinov mask are better placed for the luminance and the ha. Sii and Oiii seem a little bit off. As @sloz1664 suggests, autofocusing between filters is probably the safer option.
  7. I agree that Ha is the way to go when the Moon is out. To improve your contrast it also makes sense to shoot as far away from the Moon as well (every little helps). In terms not bothering with Ha when using a DSLR, as long as the DSLR is modded I say go for it. Sometimes the funds don't quite stretch to buy a CCD/CMOS imaging train. I've managed to get some decent results with my DSLR + astronomik 6nm Ha filter (Narrower bandwiths help with contrast and even more when the moon is out). Of course, the results won't be as good as those generated with a Cooled mono chip and when the moon is not out ... but that shouldn't stop you from going out and getting some imaging time under your belt.
  8. Rico


    It depends on your setup, your sky background, the brightness of the object and a number of other things. I shoot with a modified 700D/SWED80/FR/Astronomik CLS filter and 5 mins is the minimum I would shoot, at ISO1600, to get some of the faint nebulosity. Some of the stars, will end up over exposed and with an object like M42, the core will be completely blown out, but that's the nice thing about using multiple exposures. Some of the faint stuff is so dim, that the exposure needs to be sufficiently long enough to pad the left side of the histogram. Otherwise, it'll be hidden in a sea of noise. I guess an other thing to consider, is artefacts from over exposed stars. Some chips and scope setups generate awful patterns which simply get worse with increased exposure times. I guess most if is down to trial and error. Try it, if it works, great, if doesn't, fix it and tweak it until you get it just right.
  9. Rico


    I think you've done a really good job with the core. M42 is truly an amazing subject. I remember the first time I saw this on the back of my DSLR ... my jaw dropped. There's such a wide dynamic range in that object that you can easily get away with imaging this in a short stint. Just look at what you managed to capture with just half and hour worth of data ... on a DSLR! Amazing. As @gorann suggests though, if you really want to get the most out of this object get some longer exposures in to capture some of the surrounding dust.
  10. I really like this. There's very little noise and a lot of contrast. I've imaged this before (700d + Canon 200m) and the this is soooooo much better than what I was able to achieve. I feel like the image should be rotated 180 degrees though, its not an orientation that I'm used to.
  11. 3048m FL!!!! Wow ... great work.
  12. @Astronator, that's a bucket load of star trail for such a short exposure. Dare I say that the mount wasn't tracking at all ... lol? As long as there isn't an issue with activating the sidereal tracking, I would realign everything, make sure everything is level and nothing is loose and try it again. Maybe something was nudged out place? Maybe you aligned against something other than Polaris. So many things could have gone wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but the start alignment is a separate process entirely to the polar alignment of the mount. The aim of the polar alignment is to perfectly position the mount so that the RA axis points directly at the north celestial pole. The star alignment, should you choose to perform one, is there so that the goto knows where the telescope is pointing. Technically, you could release the clutch on the RA and the DEC and your polar alignment would remain unaffected, but your star alignment would be lost. Hope that helps.
  13. Absolutely stunning. There's so much detail in there. I don't know about you but I just can't see the helmet. All I see is a fish head with whiskers!
  14. This is the problem. You shouldn't flip the image before feeding it into DSS. When DSS does the star registration it automatically rotates the images. It should identify that some of them are 180 degrees out and rotate them for you. All your dark images will have amp glow on one side. If you then flip some of the images before taking them into DSS, then the rotated light frames will have amp glow on the other side which will not be accounted for with your darks. So either plug them in without rotating them ... or ... flip your lights and some of your darks and some of your bias (which is more labour intensive). I've read in many places that dark optimisation should not be used with cameras that suffer from amp glow as this noise is not linear and will not be scaled properly. Hope that helps.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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