The Admiral

Out of interest, I'm wondering whether your iEQ45 mount came in a proper carry case, or was it just in a cardboard box. On videos of the mount from US origin, it appears to come with a plastic flight case. Ian

Thanks Wiu-Wiu. I see you have the Lacerta MGEN, how well does that work with the mount? Or perhaps you haven't had time to try it yet . Ian

For any of you guys using the iEQ45PRO, what extra does the tri-pier bring to the party above the standard 2" tripod? Presumably the tri-pier is more rigid, but does it in practice make that much difference? I guess for 'only' 150 quid extra there's not a lot to lose. Ian

Out of interest, did you find much signal in the B and G channels, or was this taken from just the R channel? Ian

http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html Try it! Ian

Jpeg doesn't really cut it when you come to astro imaging. Being only 8 bit, they fall apart too readily with the stretching that is required. RAWs are the way to go, and as LOL221 says, DSS is a capable freeware that you should be able to run. If your laptop can run in 64 bit, then the 64 bit version of DSS would be preferable. But in any event, the processing won't be quick and letting it do its thing, even if it takes half an hour or more, so go off and have a coffee! Ian

Just goes to prove what I always believed about my X-T1, that it had a good Ha response. The ways I sort of got around the unique sensor array was to convert RAFs to DNGs using the free Adobe DNG converter. DSS does stack DNGs. However, as I was doing Alt-Az imaging and taking lots and lots of short exposure images, the duplication of all those files became a pain and consumed a lot of storage. In the end I turned to AstroArt, like you. However, whilst 'it works', as far as I can see the processing does not conform to the normal processing regime, that is, calibration on un-'de-Bayered' files, and stacking on the resultant and 'deBayered' calibrated files (if I've got that the right way around!). As I say though, I've had good enough results from it. Ian

I think you've done well with those. I found M42 to be the harder of the two, because there is such a brightness range that it's difficult to to get the feinter bits without losing detail in the highlights. What many do with that target is to take two or three sets with different length exposures, one optimised for the brighter regions and the other(s) for the feinter regions, and then they're blended together. There seems to be plenty of data there, which is good. The background looks very black; is it being clipped or is it just a 'dark grey'? If it is clipped then you'll possibly lose some feinter parts of the nebula; any noise will need to be separately dealt with. I'm not sure about M31. You've got plenty of detail in the dust lanes but the core region appears to be blown out. I don't know whether your individual subs have blown out, or whether it's the processing. Have you looked at other astro processing software besides GIMP? StarTools is worth a look. There is a fully functioning trial, other than you can't save, but is very reasonably priced anyway. Also, can I check, you are stacking the RAW files? Ian

A nice rendition and a difficult target. I used 122 lights of 30s each for mine (could always use more!), and the good red response of the X-T1 made all the difference. There are some very bright stars in the field, in particular Alnitak, so there is some advantage in reducing the exposure here rather than pushing it further I think, as some parts of the image appear to have blown. Also, if you can work with a lower ISO to improve the dynamic range then that is an advantage. I run my X-T1 generally at 1600 ISO (sometimes 400ISO), because a look here indicates that something odd happens at greater ISOs, possibly digital amplification. Ah, just realised you're not using the Fuji , so something odd happens, but at a higher ISO with the 5300! (see http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm) Ian

Well I thinks so, but couldn't prove it! My Fuji X-T1 doesn't have an anti-alias filter by design and I've always been impressed at the level of detail I get with astro images. I would guess the main issue is for the pixel density to be high enough that oversampling occurs. Just my 2 pence-worth. Ian

Even the opalescent type? Do you think that will happen? It's outside my experience certainly, but with an opalescent sheet and (relatively) broad band radiation? Just a further option, and perhaps retrograde in this day and age, but black light fluorescent tubes can be had much more cheaply than LEDs. See for example, https://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product-type/specialist-bulbs/ultraviolet/, and you might find one suitable for your needs. Ian

Just a thought, what material are you going to use to diffuse the light source at UV wavelengths? Ian

Yes, I found that with a Lumix GH2 RW2. See previous post. Ian

Hmm, interesting. I thought DSS used DCRaw to interrogate the file. Strangely, when I was having trouble with DSS recognizing Fuji X-Trans raw files, I compared it with a Panny GH2 RW2 file, and that seemed to work OK! An alternative is to use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert the RW2 files to DNG, which are recognized by DSS. Ian

Couldn't get onto the site at 8 this morning, but no problem now. Ian